Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Economic Development

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what plans have been made for economic development in Basutoland, including a mineral survey, the provision of afforestation and light industries, and the use of United Nations technical assistance.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) on 11th December.
In reply to the specific matters referred to in the Question, there is little sign of the presence of minerals, apart from diamonds, in Basutoland, but as I said in the House on Monday, 15th December, I am considering whether there is a case for a further mineral survey to be undertaken there.
As the production of timber in Basutoland on a commercial scale would have to be at the expense of agricultural land, the present policy is to establish small plantations to supply fuel and building timber, and to control soil erosion.
The possibility of establishing light industries for processing wool, mohair, hides and other local products is under investigation.
United Nations technical assistance has been enlisted for a nutrition survey, which is still proceeding.

Mr. Brockway: While I appreciate what has been done, may I ask the hon. Member whether he will give very urgent and dynamic attention to this matter? Is

it not a trump card in the hand of the Union of South Africa that so many people from Basutoland have to go to Johannesburg to get a job? Is it not very important for the defence of Basutoland that we should engage in very bold economic development?

Mr. Alport: If it is to be of value to Basutoland, economic development in Basutoland must be successful and based on a sound economic basis. In so far as we are able to do that, we are as anxious as anybody to ensure that progress is made.

Constitutional Talks

Mr. Wall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement about the recent constitutional talks with the Basutoland delegation.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under- Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the discussions with representatives of Basutoland on constitutional development in the Protectorate.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement regarding the constitutional talks with the Basutoland delegation.

Mr. Alport: The talks with the Basutoland delegation have now been successfully concluded and my noble Friend will be making a full statement on the subject today in another place. A statement of the conclusions reached will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Mr. Wall: Will this statement cover economic questions as well as those of constitutional advance?

Mr. Alport: No. This statement will concern itself entirely with the negotiations which have been proceeding over the last week concerned with the constitutional progress of Basutoland.

Mr. Brockway: Does the hon. Member mean that a statement is to be made in another place and no statement is to be made to the House of Commons? The House of Commons has the main responsibility in this matter. Why is the hon. Member deciding it?

Mr. Alport: It is entirely appropriate, and I am sure that it would be the wish of the Basuto delegation that an important statement of this sort should be made by the Secretary of State himself, and that is the intention today.

Mr. Brockway: And also made here.

Mr. Alport: I have said in my answer that a statement of the conclusions reached will be laid before Parliament in due course. That will give the House a full opportunity of studying the full details, and the matter will be available to be raised at any appropriate time in the future.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the exceptional circumstances of the House meeting this morning and a statement to be made in another place later in the day, would it not be discourteous not to impart this information to the House? May I suggest to the hon. Member that he might seek the consent of the Secretary of State, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, for this statement to be made to the House at the end of Questions?

Mr. J. Johnson: While I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said, may I ask, having regard to what The Times said this morning and not having heard the statement, whether we may be allowed to be optimistic about it? Can the Minister at least give us a hint about that?

Mr. Alport: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the phrase which I used in the Answer—
The talks with the Basutoland delegation have now been successfully concluded.…

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. I should like to seek your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker, for the honour and prestige of the House. Negotiations have been proceeding with the Basutoland delegation about the future constitution of Basutoland. Recognising the prestige of the House, is it in order that on the last day a statement should be made in another place but that we should have no statement in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Ritual Murder

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consideration is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the setting-up of a special independent commission to investigate the causes of ritual murder in Basutoland.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under- Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware of the anxiety felt by leading people in Basutoland about medicine murder; and whether he will consider having an official inquiry, the members of which would include an English judge and an anthropologist.

Mr. Alport: This matter was considered by the Basutoland Council on 20th March, when it rejected a proposal by a member of the Council for an independent Commission and unanimously supported the continuation of joint efforts between the Government and the Basuto people to deal with the problem. An Anti-Liretlo Committee was accordingly set up, and its report is now awaited.

Mr. Mallalieu: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in a matter of this sort it is best to act with full knowledge of the facts? Does not the hon. Gentleman's statement indicate that if the Government propose to hammer away, at any rate they will hammer away in ignorance on this very important question?

Mr. Alport: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that an investigation has been made into this matter. But I believe that the unanimous judgment expressed by the Basutoland Council is the correct one. I do not think it does a service to Basutoland constantly to highlight this particular phenomenon, which appears in different forms in various parts of Africa and which I am quite convinced the vast majority of the Basuto people are as anxious as we are to stamp out as quickly as possible.

Mr. J. Johnson: While recognising that this is not unique to Basutoland—it happens in Sierra Leone, Nyasaland and other places in Africa—is it not a fact that there has been disquiet about methods of taking evidence from witnesses in the past? Is it not a fact that this ritual murder is in some way tied


up with disputes over chieftainship? Would the hon. Gentleman think again about this question?

Mr. Alport: That is certainly the conclusion reached in the Jones Report. Disagreement about the methods of the police is a different matter, and I should have to deal with that separately.

Wool Mohair Industry

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what facilities are available in Basutoland for the processing of the wool mohair produced in the territory.

Mr. Alport: None, Sir. Economic conditions are at present adverse to the establishment of this type of industry. The position is, however, kept under careful review by the Basutoland authorities.

Mr. Mallalieu: Was it not the view of the delegation which was over here recently that this commodity could be processed in the territory? Is it not important that there should be processing of natural resources inside the territory, having regard to the dependence on the Union?

Mr. Alport: As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we are most anxious that development of light industry should take place in this territory if possible. When I was in Southern Africa this year, I asked the C.D.C. management in that part of the country to go into this point carefully again. They have promised to do so. but I again warn the House that it is most important that any development of this sort should be based upon sound economics rather than cause a new disappointment to the Basuto people in the end by the failure of something upon which they place many cherished hopes.

Economic Surveys

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under- Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what economic surveys have taken place in Basutoland; and by whom have they been made.

Mr. Alport: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the six surveys which hive been carried out between 1935 and the present day.
The reports on these surveys are available for consultation in the Library of the House.

Mr. Johnson: Would not the hon. Gentleman confirm today what he did not tell me on Monday night, namely, that there has never been a high-powered survey of this Colony? Would not he agree to send someone of the calibre, say, of Mr. Arthur Gaitskell, who has been to the Sudan, or Professor Lewis, of the University of Manchester, who knows the Colony and who would be able to give us something which we have not had in the past?

Mr. Alport: There have been six fairly thorough surveys, the details of which I will send to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot fully evaluate them, but I am sure they cover all the important aspects of Basuto economic development. I shall not, however, close my mind in any way to the necessity, perhaps, for an even more up-to-date survey of the economic potential of Basutoland in the near future, and I am perfectly prepared to consider that point.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, the interest which has been shown by hon. Member in the affairs of Basutoland. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, for the sake of the dignity of the House, to reconsider what he said previously about making a statement on the constitutional issue so that hon. Members may have the opportunity to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker: I think that question has been raised before. There is nothing more I can do about it.

The following is a chronological list:

Report on the Financial and Economic Position of Basutoland, by Pim, 1935, Cmd. 4907.

An Ecological Survey of the Mountain Area of Basutoland, by Staples and Hudson, 1936.

Report on the Geology of Basutoland, by Stockley, 1947.

Basutoland Agricultural Survey, by Douglas and Tennant, 1950.

High Commission Territories, Economic Development and Social Services, 1955, Cmd. 9580.

Report on the Regional Development of the Water Resources of Basutoland, by Shand, 1956.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Defence Facilities

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has received of the attitude of the African populations of Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland regarding the defence facilities to be provided to the Union of South Africa under the recent Defence Agreement.

Mr. Alport: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to him on 31st July and to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) on 24th July. The views expressed by the appropriate authorities in the three Territories were taken fully into account. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that responsibility for security in the High Commission Territories rests exclusively with the United Kingdom Government, which ensures that the interests of the inhabitants of the Territories are effectively safeguarded.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Member aware that on those two occasions he gave us no information at all? Is he aware that since then I have been in communication with the native authorities both in Bechuanaland and in Basutoland and that in Bechuanaland the Chairman of the African Native Board has strongly opposed these defence arrangements and in Basutoland the Paramount Chief and others have expressed their opposition, too?

Mr. Alport: I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the very full statement which I made about this in answer to one of his Questions on 31st July. He will see that in answer to a supplementary question I designated the various native authorities in the Protectorates who were consulted in this matter. We fully realise the sensitiveness of opinion in the Territories on this question, and the resident and district commissioners are instructed to correct any misunderstandings about this Agreement which might arise on political grounds. Let me emphasise to the hon. Member once again that the Agreement is exclusively and entirely concerned with defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Grammar and Technical School Places

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied that the present proportion of secondary grammar and secondary technical places available for children at the age of 11 plus is sufficient to give equality of opportunity in the secondary stage of education; and what steps he proposes to take to alter these proportions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): Equality of opportunity does not depend only on the proportion of grammar and technical school places, but also on the provision of courses of high quality in other types of secondary school. It is the Government's aim, as explained in the White Paper, that every child shall be able to travel along the educational road as far as his ability and perseverance can carry him.

Mr. Thomas: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary has not ignored the fact that over 70 per cent. of the children of Britain cannot hope to get a secondary grammar school education, however great their ability. Does not the Ministry wish to reduce the figure of over 70 per cent.?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Government's recent White Paper, he will find that it explains very clearly the necessity of having similar courses for some children in modern schools and some in grammar schools. The hon. Member knows very well that we are always ready to consider the question of grammar school places in the light of local circumstances and arrange our building programme accordingly if need can be proved.

School Building Programme

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what alteration he made in the Cardiff City Education Authority's building programme for 1959–60; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: Of the eight primary and' secondary school building projects proposed by the Cardiff local education authority for inclusion in the 1959–60 programme, four were accepted, one was


placed in reserve, one is under further consideration and two were inadmissible under current policy.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a great need for further secondary school places in the Canton district of Cardiff? Can he give an idea when we shall be able to have extended secondary school facilities in that part of the city?

Sir E. Boyle: I thought that it was the Canton project which the hon. Gentleman had in mind. The project under further consideration is for the provision of new premises for Canton High School at an estimated cost of £178,000, which the hon. Gentleman will recognise is a large project. I know that the existing premises are not wholly satisfactory, but the authority's case for providing new premises depends, under current policy, on the need for more grammar school places in the city. As I implied in my previous Answer, my right hon. Friend is now examining this matter with care. I cannot say more than that today.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Education whether, in cases where local education authorities have already submitted proposals for urgent school building projects of the type described in the recent White Paper, he will authorise them to commence building in 1959–60 instead of waiting until 1960–61 or later.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend cannot increase the 1959–60 school building programme, but he will be ready, as hitherto, to consider substituting a project from a later programme for one in the 1959–60 programme when this would be convenient.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the White Paper refers to the urgency of replacing makeshift schools, and that the Kirkby Mowlands School in my constituency is a makeshift school consisting of 16ft. span Nissen huts into which 950 children are crowded, where there is inadequate ventilation and a very poor atmosphere? Why cannot a project of that type be brought into early construction instead of having to be deferred until 1960 or later, or else put in the place of some other project?

Sir E. Boyle: From 1960–61 onwards we hope to be able to include in the programme a limited number of categories

of schools which have had to be excluded from the programme by successive Governments until hitherto. My right hon. Friend hopes to settle the major building programmes for 1960–61 and 1961–62 in the early months of next year.

Mr. M. Stewart: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that the Minister cannot increase the 1959–60 programme? Surely it is not a physical impossibility to do so. Why cannot he consider it?

Sir E. Boyle: Because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently announced that capital expenditure in the public sector will be £150 million higher next year than last year, and the school building programme has to be planned against that background.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education what representations he has received for an immediate increase in the school building programme in the current year.

Sir E. Boyle: None recently. As already announced, my right hon. Friend is prepared to authorise some minor projects to start in 1958–59 instead of 1959–60.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of unemployment in the building trade all over the country and of idle building resources? Would he not, therefore, reconsider the question of enlarging the existing programme in view of the fact that there are building workers and building materials available? The question is whether the Ministry will recognise the urgent need to get on with the programme.

Sir E. Boyle: There is not much scope for adding major projects so late in the programme, but my right hon. Friend is always ready to consider a proposal to bring forward the starting date of a particular project on which planning is already well advanced. If the hon. Gentleman's authority has any proposals of this kind to bring forward, we will consider them.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does not this answer and the answer to Question No. 16 mean that the Government have no substantial plans for a great increase in school building in the next twelve months?

Sir E. Boyle: The programme for 1959–60 has already been announced and we have to consider that programme against the general background of capital expenditure in the public sector. But the Government have a large programme for expanding school building for the years starting 1960–61.

Mr. Jay: As the general economic position of the country requires an expansion of building activity, why cannot the Chancellor agree to a larger building programme for 1959–60?

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of how dangerous it is when we have got the economy back under control to relax too quickly and too soon. No one ought to know that better than right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Education what, on the basis of approvals given by him, is the estimated value of major school building projects to be started in each of the years 1958–59 and 1959–60.

Sir E. Boyle: About £51 million and £46 million.

Mr. Warbey: Do not these figures reveal the extent to which essential education building has suffered under the present Government as a result of the policy which the Parliamentary Secretary revealed in answer to my previous Question? In view of the decline in essential school building during the present period, do not the figures given in the White Paper for 1960–62 show that this is really nothing but election window-dressing and has no connection with the reality of the Government's intention?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think there is a single point in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question with which I can agree. There has never been a time in history when the education service fared better than under the present Government. It is only reasonable that the make-up of the education building programme as a whole should vary from year to year. My right hon. Friend has given details of the whole programme in answer to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) on an earlier occasion. The total value of the programmes for 1958–59 and 1959–60 will be almost the same in those years.

We should not forget that next year we are making a start with the enlarged training college programme which is of great importance to all children.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I remember very well the answer which was given to me, but when one studies that with the answer which has been given to my hon. Friend and compares them with the increase in the number of children, one finds it difficult to accept the favourable conclusion which the hon. Gentleman draws?

Sir E. Boyle: We are making a good start with the training college programme. We have been able to reduce the size of the classes in primary schools without worsening the position in secondary schools, and we can point to a favourable trend which has been maintained.

School Inspectors

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what period of teaching service is regarded as a minimum qualification in the recruitment of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools.

Sir E. Boyle: No specific period is laid down, but some substantial experience of teaching is essential, and this is normally not less than eight to ten years.

Mr. Thomas: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I assume that no one is appointed to the rank of inspector of schools without having substantial experience of teaching?

Sir E. Boyle: There are no specific rules about the kind of teaching service required, except that it must be generally relevant to the duties which the inspector will be asked to undertake. In the case of technical education, some kinds of industrial experience would be very relevant.

Church Schools

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education what recent request he has received from the Church Assembly for an immediate increase in the grant for grant-aided schools from 50 to 75 per cent.; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Sir E. Boyle: The Church Assembly has asked for an increase to 75 per cent. in the rate of grant. The hon. Member


will see from the White Paper which was published recently that my right hon. Friend is proposing to discuss with the parties concerned the possibility of more help for church schools.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a serious and pressing problem? Can he hold out some hope that a satisfactory solution which is agreeable to all the interests concerned will be reached at an early date?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman about a date, but I can say that the parties with whom my right hon. Friend is proposing to discuss this question are representatives of the Churches, of local authorities and of the teaching profession as well. The Government are also inviting the other political parties to consult with them. In that respect, they are following the pattern of what happened before the 1944 Act.

Mr. Mellish: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the biggest anomalies is that there is no grant at all for grammar schools or technical schools. This is an anomaly which I do not think anyone could defend.

Sir E. Boyle: This is a big and, if I may say so, a somewhat treacherous subject, and I think the hon. Member will agree that it goes somewhat beyond the scope of the Question; but we have the subject in mind.

Secondary School, Loftus

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Education if he will now give consent to the building of a new county secondary school at Loftus in the Cleveland parliamentary constituency, in view of the inadequacy of present arrangements and the unanimous demand of all sections of local opinion that the school should be provided.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the inclusion of this proposal in an early building programme.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the need for this School is very great indeed? It has been promised for many years and, now that things are a little easier, would he in

consultation with the county authority see that the school receives high priority?

Sir E. Boyle: We are aware that conditions in the local schools in this area are poor. The authority's submissions for the 1960–61 and 1961–62 programmes are due before 1st February, and I promise that my right hon. Friend will make a decision on them as soon as possible after that date.

Secondary Modern Schools (General Certificate of Education)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education to what extent it is his policy to encourage the development of courses for the General Certificate of Education in secondary modern schools.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend's recent White Paper gave the strongest encouragement to the development of extended courses in schools of this kind. These should certainly include courses for the General Certificate of Education where appropriate.

Mr. Swingler: Can we therefore say that we have now converted the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the view that all secondary schools should provide a comprehensive range of courses?

Sir E. Boyle: I am not going to be drawn into the controversy about comprehensive schools. The White Paper does not mention the G.C.E. specifically. This is because the Government's aim is wider than that and includes opportunities of extended courses of all kinds. Our policy is that all children, in whatever schools they find themselves, should receive the kind of education which is most appropriate to their abilities.

Mr. M. Stewart: How can they do that unless the school offers a comprehensive range of courses?

Sir E. Boyle: There is a considerable difference between a comprehensive range of courses, with which all of us would agree, so far as the aptitudes of the children make these courses appropriate, and the very large comprehensive schools which are advocated in another context from the other side of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Wines

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to assisting Anglo-French commercial relations, he will initiate a new commercial treaty with the Republic of France under which protection will be given to the description, "Champagne", in the same way as it is given to the description, "Port and Madeira", under the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty Acts, 1914 and 1916.

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking in the interest of good Franco-British trading relations and in accordance with the Madrid Convention to prevent the importation of wines masquerading under the name of French wine-growing areas where the combination of climate, soil and technique produces unique types of wine officially designated by French law.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): These are matters which fall to be decided by the courts, and it is not the present intention of the Government to introduce legislation to change this.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In view of the adverse decision by an Old Bailey jury and the failure to give protection to the French champagne growers, and in view of the great interest of the French champagne growers in this matter, would it not be a gesture of Christmas good will to approach the French Government with a view to making a treaty similar to that which we have with Portugal for the protection of port and madeira?

Mr. Rodgers: In view of the uncertainty about the Free Trade Area, I do not think this would be an opportune moment to suggest a commercial treaty on this narrow front.

Mr. Jay: Next time the President of the Board of Trade negotiates with the French. can he arrange for champagne of all types to be available so that a happier atmosphere may prevail?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that is a very good Christmas suggestion.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what

action has been taken during recent years to prevent the importation of falsely described wines; whether he will re-examine the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act to ensure that they are still sufficient to cover United Kingdom obligations under the Madrid Convention of 1934 and in particular under Article 3 bis of that Agreement, whereby signatory Governments must prohibit anything capable of deceiving the public as to origin in, signs, advertisements and wine lists; and what action he proposes to take to implement the Agreement more effectively.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for preventing the importation of goods under false descriptions. With regard to the rest of the Question, I am advised that the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887–1953, extended by the Patents Etc. (International Conventions) Act, 1938, give proper effect to our obligations under international agreements to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As the Old Bailey decision went against the Merchandise Marks Act, cannot the Act be amended, because under Article 3 bis we undertake with the countries to which the present Agreement applies to prohibit the use in connection with the sale of any goods of any indication in the nature of publicity capable of deceiving the public as to the origin of goods appearing in any signs, advertisements and merchants' wine lists and other commercial communications?

Mr. Rodgers: Interpretation of whether the description is false or misleading lies with the courts.

Advertisements

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his attention has been drawn to an advertisement in the Daily Sketch, of 1st December, 1958, by Norvac Electrics Limited, purporting to offer for sale rebuilt Hoover or Electrolux vacuum cleaners for £4 12s. 6d. each on hire purchase with free hire-purchase insurance against sickness, unemployment, and death, together with a free hearth rug; whether he is aware that this and similar advertisements published by this company are misleading in intent and effect, and are causing distress to inquirers who


are visited by salesmen selling and delivering new vacuum cleaners costing £31; and whether he will make inquiries into these practices with a view to controlling them;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to an advertisement published in the Radio Times on 14th November, 1958, by Central Electrics (London), Limited, purporting to offer for sale rebuilt electric washing machines for £14 14s.; whether he is aware that this and other advertisements by this company are misleading the public, as machines are not generally available at this price, and that inquirers are visited by salesmen selling new machines; and what administrative action he proposes to take to deal with these advertisements.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Inquiries by the Board of Trade into advertisements of this kind are not yet completed.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that this firm of Norvac is the largest advertiser in the field of vacuum cleaners and its advertisement, repeated in the Question, is so extravagant that it borders on nonsense? In the inquiries being made, will he not only consult the advertising agencies and the firm concerned, but also consider the representations made by the salesmen employed by this firm and the representations made by the consumers concerned in all parts of the country, who have written to me about this question and whose names I am prepared to submit to him?

Mr. Rodgers: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would await the completion of our inquiries and not ask me to comment further. I think that he will be satisfied when I have completed the inquiries.

Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the industrial land with the necessary facilities readily available in Bristol; and if he will take steps to encourage industrialists to take these sites so that employment may be found for the men who are becoming redundant in the industries of the district.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I am aware of the facilities available for industry in Bristol, but while the rate of unemployment remains below the national average special

action to attract further industry to the city would not be justified.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware of the danger of redundancy and the unemployment that this would cause in the aircraft industry? Will he not do something to absorb these men by utilising the ground already available and where we have the gas, electricity, water and transport already available for him to use? Will he use that instead of going to virgin territory and developing that?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware that there are some further redundancies expected in the aircraft industry, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the projects recently completed or under construction or likely to be started in the near future cover I million square feet and should provide work for 2,000 workers in the Bristol area during the next two years.

Cotton Imports (Hong Kong and Japan)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the cotton trade talks in Hong Kong; or when he hopes to be able to do so.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. John Vaughan-Morgan): As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained on 2nd December, the inter-industry negotiations are still in progress. A statement will be made as soon as they are concluded.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling in Lancashire that if, after three years of negotiation, no satisfactory agreement can be reached, then the Government themselves should impose a ceiling on these imports or adopt the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for a central buying agency to import all cotton goods?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend in the debate yesterday on that subject. I fully appreciate the anxiety of the House at the delay in bringing matters to a conclusion. This is fully shared by the Cotton Board which, like the Government, consider that public discussion of this subject would not facilitate an early settlement.

Mr. Jay: As these negotiations are on the point of expected break down, can the Minister say whether the Government have made up their own mind as to what they will do if the negotiations are not: concluded in reasonable time?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That point was dealt with very succinctly by my right hon. Friend last night.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not reasonable that the home market at least should be saved from goods made by such low labour standards?

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the growing practice for Japanese textiles to be imported into Eire, made up there and exported to Britain, causing serious unemployment in Salford and other parts of Lancashire; and if he will take action to prevent the import of such textiles.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am aware of the difficulties which have arisen from these exports and I am glad to say that the Government of the Irish Republic have agreed in principle to limit them. The details are now being discussed, and we are treating this as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Allaun: While I am most grateful for that news, will the Minister examine the most alarming news which I have been given this morning from Lancashire and meet the representatives of the firms concerned which are having to close mills because of this great evasion of existing quotas and duties on Japanese imports?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that is why we are treating this as a matter of urgency.

British Lion Films, Ltd.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what offer has been made for the purchase by private interests of the holdings of the National Film Finance Corporation in British Lion Films Limited; and whether he proposes to give his approval.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Two offers have been made, but neither was considered acceptable by the National Film Finance Cor-

poration. and no question of my right hon. Friend's approval has arisen.

Mr. Jay: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take note that a large amount of public money is being invested in this company and many of my hon. Friends would be very critical if it were to be sold at a large loss to the taxpayers and a large profit to private companies?

Mr. Rodgers: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's views on this, but I think that we should await the subsequent debate today.

Mr. Speaker: I should say that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has very kindly, at my request, withdrawn his request to raise this subject on the Adjournment this afternoon. This is because we are going to be very short of time.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take note of the fact that no absolute denial has been made of the statement that appeared in the Daily Express on 11th December?

Mr. Rodgers: I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement recently issued by the N.F.F.C. The National Film Finance Corporation announced that no negotiations for the sale of their interest in British Lion Films, Limited, are now in progress and no such sale is now contemplated. I should like to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay); I did not realise that his Adjournment debate had been withdrawn.

Mr. Jay: I realise that the hon. Gentle man was not aware of that. As we are not going to debate this subject, can the Parliamentary Secretary at least assure us that no such sale will go through until we have had an opportunity of debating this matter after Christmas?

Mr. Rodgers: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that no such sale is contemplated at the moment and no sale will take place without my right hon. Friend's permission. I do not see any likelihood in the near future of a sale being negotiated. I think I can say with confidence that we shall have a debate before the sale takes place.

Import Duties (Soya Beans and Oil)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the import duties on soya beans and soya bean oil.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If applications are made by users or producers for the alteration of these duties my right hon. Friend will consider them in the usual way.

Mr. Willey: Will the President of the Board of Trade take some initiative without awaiting an application? Is he aware that these duties increase the price of oil seed cake and tie withdrawal of the duties would help to reduce farming costs?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is usual for the interested parties to make their application under the Act, and the evidence of the hon. Gentleman will be considered with everything else.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Schedule A

Mr. Barter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, under his regulations, are the items of expenditure which can be admitted for relief in a maintenance claim for Income Tax, Schedule A, by an owner-occupier.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): Expenditure on the maintenance, repair and insurance of the property which is incurred by the owner-occupier as owner and not as occupier.

Mr. Barter: Is the matter really as simple as that? Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are 4½ to 5 million owner occupiers in residential accommodation who make no claim and who find it more simple to fill in a football pool coupon than a maintenance claim form? Will he consider what steps he can take to draw their attention to their entitlement, particularly bearing in mind that the minority who do claim, according to his right hon. Friend, receive allowances in nearly all cases?

Mr. Simon: Those who do not specifically claim are entitled to the statutory repairs allowance, and it may well be that the reason they do not claim

is because the statutory repairs allowance is more favourable to them.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will carry out a review into the present adverse effect which the 60 per cent. and 30 per cent. rates of Purchase Tax are having on the export trade of the industries affected by the said rates.

Mr. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on 9th December.

Mr. Nabarro: But would not my hon. and learned Friend recognise that three of our major exporting industries, the motor vehicle industry first, the radio and television industry second, and the toilet preparations industry third, have now presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer detailed arguments and cogent reasons for alleviating the 60 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax on their products, which is so adversely affecting exports? Does not this merit special consideration before the Budget?

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend will, of course, give full consideration to all representations which are made to him. and they certainly include the representations to which my hon. Friend refers, but, of course, he has got to weigh export considerations against the need for revenue.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish Purchase Tax on all gas water heating appliances, with a view to increasing production of primary smokeless fuels, such as gas and coke, in pursuit of clean air policy, while making the best use of the nation's coal, in accord with the recommendations of the Ridley Committee. 1952.

Mr. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th November to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

Mr. Nabarro: Has my hon. and learned Friend observed that a gas cooker, for example, has no Purchase Tax on it and that a gas water heater


has 30 per cent. Purchase Tax on it? Is it not equally desirable, socially and otherwise, that people should have hot baths as well as heating their Sunday lunch? Why is there this unfavourable discrimination between heat for the preparation of food and for the cleanliness of the human body?

Mr. Simon: My hon. Friend will have remarked that the rate of tax on most domestic gas water heating appliances was reduced from 60 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the last Budget. So a substantial step was taken in the social directions my hon. Friend indicates.

Sir H. Roper: While we should all like to see the end of Purchase Tax, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us would prefer to see the repayment of post-war credits?

Mr. Nabarro: That has nothing to do with it at present.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present net yield to the Exchequer of Purchase Tax on commercial vehicle chassis, after taking into account initial allowances and depreciation allowances thereon, is not in excess of £8 million per annum; and whether, in view of the small proportion which this sum hears to the £500 million per annum which he is still obtaining from Purchase Tax, despite recent reductions. he will undertake to deal with the abolition of the Purchase Tax on commercial vehicle chassis as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Simon: Without accepting my hon. Friend's premise, I must again refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 18th November.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but 18th November is some time ago. Has my hon. and learned Friend observed that the industry producing commercial vehicle chassis is at the present time tending to be depressed both in respect of home demand and exports, and that many of the works are situated in areas which have a level of unemployment higher than the national average? Would it not be desirable from every point of view unilaterally to relieve commercial vehicle

chassis before the next Budget and thus help the employment position?

Mr. Simon: I do not think I can enlarge on the reply which my right hon. Friend originally gave, except to spell out what my right hon. Friend said. which was that my hon. Friend
must not expect pronouncements from me about possible changes in taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 122.]

Trustee Savings Banks

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pressure has been brought to bear by the Treasury on the Trustee Savings Banks to restrict the development of their banking services.

Mr. Simon: None, Sir, although there are, of course, long-standing arrangements for regulating the activities of the Trustee Savings Banks.

Mr. Jay: Would the Financial Secretary agree that if these valuable savings banks wish to extend their services to the public they ought not to be restrained by the Government just to prevent competition with the commercial banks?

Mr. Simon: As to the value of these institutions, I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says. No official approach has recently been made by the Association of Savings Banks to my right hon. Friend, but he will, of course, be ready at any time to consider any views which they may put forward for his consideration.

Cycle Industry (Representations)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the further recent decline in the cycle industry, if he has now fully considered the recent representations made to him by the retail and manufacturing side of the industry; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered these representations. but has no statement to make.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister not aware that even within the last fortnight a further decline has occurred and that one firm at Smethwick has declared 100 employees redundant, while 1,000 people are on a four-day week? Surely it is time that some action should be taken


to relieve this industry before it is too late? Will he remember that it is not the hire-purchase facilities which we want but a lower price to enable improved sales as a result of a reduction of Purchase Tax?

Mr. Simon: I had the pleasure of receiving the representatives of the industry myself, and my right hon. Friend certainly appreciates the industry's difficulties, but nevertheless I cannot, I am afraid, enlarge on my original Answer. I cannot make a pronouncement about possible changes in taxation.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the Financial Secretary realise that the position is now really very bad, that it is causing unemployment, and that proper measures taken in this case could reduce unemployment in my constituency of Smethwick and in other areas where this industry is now suffering?

Mr. Simon: It is not as simple as that. There are various repercussions upon other competing industries which have also got to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (SPEECH)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, made at Black pool on 9th October, to the effect that Kenya is one of Britain's fortress Colonies and that it is necessary to ensure that national and nationalist problems do not conflict with this fortress rôle, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My right hon. Friend was doing no more than to stress the importance of Kenya in the chain of Commonwealth defence, and the consequent need for good government in the country.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware of the very great concern in Kenya that Kenya should be described as a fortress Colony along with Gibraltar and Cyprus? Is it to be assumed that the representations of the representatives of 99 per cent. of Kenya's population, the total population which is non-European, requesting constitutional talks, have been

rejected because of strategical requirements?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think everybody must recognise that the whole Commonwealth benefits from the system of Commonwealth defence.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are concerned about the disastrous results which seem to have flowed from a similar remark from the then Mr. Henry Hopkinson, when he was Minister of State, about Cyprus? Those who are interested in the future of the Colonies and defence get terrified when we see remarks like those made, because they cause a good deal of trouble afterwards, which gets in the way.

The Prime Minister: There is no question of the progress of a country to self- government being in any way impeded or retarded by the value of the area from the Commonwealth defence point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ OPERATIONS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the damage to Great Britain's national reputation by the allegations, of which notice has officially been taken, to the effect that British Ministers were informed on 10th October, 1956, of the intention of Israel to attack Egypt with the assistance of France, he will publish a White Paper setting out the facts.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the harm caused to the national reputation by the recent Press allegations, of which official notice has been taken, about the military and political conduct of the attack on Suez, including inefficiency, miscalculation, collusion, and misleading the House and the country, he will appoint a Select Committee to institute an inquiry into these allegations and related issues.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: n view of the further facts about Suez given by Mr. Randolph Churchill in today's Daily Express, which seem to show that his allegations have not been without substance, would the Prime Minister state clearly and unequivocally


to the House that no member of the present Government was aware in advance of Israel's intention to attack Egypt with the connivance of France?

The Prime Minister: All these matters have been rebutted in debate, and I have nothing to add to what was said by my precedessor both two years ago and recently.

Mrs. Castle: Rebut them now.

Mr. Younger: Is the Prime Minister aware that what has been said in debate have been simply ex parte statements by Ministers who were themselves concerned, and that what we want is evidence? Is he aware that nobody will ever be convinced by statements from that bench opposite unsupported by the evidence, and that that is why we want a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: If hon. Members are not prepared to accept my statement, I cannot see the point of asking me to make one.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give a clear answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? It is a simple question which could really be answered either "Yes" or "No"

The Prime Minister: This matter was discussed in detail and my predecessor made the position perfectly clear two years ago, I think on 16th December. I have nothing to add to his statement.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the Prime Minister, in the light of the information now available, at least reconsider the remark he made in Washington on 11th June, when he said that the Suez campaign was sound, honourable and justified? Is that still his opinion.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I said perfectly frankly what I believed to be the broad view of the British people—then and now.

Mr. Jay: Would it not save future discussion if the Prime Minister were to answer "Yes" or "No" to my hon. Friend's question?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, because this matter is perfectly clear. These accusations have been made and I do not accept them to be true.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS (MESSAGES)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will send a message to the heads of all Governments expressing Great Britain's determination to seek peace and foster good will with all peoples, irrespective of creed, colour, race or politics.

The Prime Minister: Since it is well known that Her Majesty's Government's policy is based on these admirable principles, I hardly think that such a message is necessary.

Mr. Swingler: Would it not be a good idea for this country, or at any rate for heads of Governments, occasionally to express a certain amount of good will towards each other? Would it not be appropriate, especially in view of the controversies raging both at home and abroad, if at this time the pro tem head of the British Government made a reaffirmation of faith in the ideals and principles of the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: This is a specific Question as to whether I should send a specific message to all other heads of Governments. I think, as I have said, that though we may be divided on certain points, our broad British policies for peace and good will are well known, and I should not have thought it necessary to send a special message of this kind to every Government throughout the world.

Mr. Brockway: In Cyprus.

The Prime Minister: I say that although I appreciate the feeling that lies behind the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that there is a general urge among our Colonies for self-government, would the Prime Minister meet representatives of the various Colonies and tell them that it is our intention to give them self-government at the earliest opportunity and that he will help them in every way he can to achieve it in the quickest possible time?

The Prime Minister: I think every hon. Member who has looked at the story of colonial development throughout the Empire towards self-government over the last two generations must regard it as a very noble and very fine story, and it is


our intention, as I think it is of Governments drawn from either side of the House, to continue in this process of education and preparation towards the increase of local self-government. The picture is very different from that in countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue a White Paper setting out details of the partition scheme for Cyprus, prepared by Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think hon. Members are really making too much of this. The study to which my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary referred was the one mentioned as long ago as 31st May, 1957, when the Colonial Office stated that an examination of the problems which would be involved in the partition of Cyprus had been carried out by the Cyprus Government. That study showed that partition was technically possible. But it also made it clear that it would bring intolerable hardship. It would therefore be in a sense a confession of failure. That is why Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing their policy for a provisional solution which would give to the island a period of peace during which the outlines of a long-term solution could be worked out. I think there is really nothing new or of special significance in all this.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was a newspaper very favourable to the Government, the Daily Mail, which on 12th December carried the headline "Partition Plan for Cyprus Ready?" Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is bound to have a disastrous effect on the confidence of the Greek Government in the aims of the British Government? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman say categorically that the British Government rule out partition as a solution for Cyprus?

The Prime Minister: I think that the best statement I can make is what I have already stated. We would regard it as the worst possible solution but one which might be forced if nothing else can be done. We should regard it as follows, if I may use the words of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for

Foreign Affairs, on 25th November to the United Nations:
A measure of communal autonomy is one thing. Partition is another. There is no confusion between the two in our intentions. The partition of Cyprus would bring great misery to many people. We have never favoured it as a solution of the Cyprus problem. We do not favour it now.

Mr. Callaghan: Whilst we welcome this somewhat half-hearted rebuke of the Colonial Secretary, will the Prime Minister also extend that rebuke to cover the statement made by the Colonial Secretary at the Conservative Party conference when he referred to Cyprus as Turkey's off-shore island? Is the Prime Minister not aware that it is not hon. Members on this side of the House who are making too much of this, but that the Colonial Secretary in his last two reported statements has come down unequivocally on Turkey's side?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has not quoted my right hon. Friend's statement correctly. My right hon. Friend did not say that Cyprus was Turkey's off-shore island, either at the Conservative Party Conference or anywhere else. What he did was to give the different points of view and to say that to the Turks, and from the Turkish point of view, it is regarded as their off-shore island.

Mr. Callaghan: That being so, is it not also equally important that the Colonial Secretary should give at the same time the view of Greek Cypriots if he is going to hope to get some sort of settlement of this situation?

The Prime Minister: I think that both my right hon. Friend and I—and we must leave it to the judgment of the House and of the country—have struggled very hard, and not altogether without some signs of progress, to get a solution. I have tried to put the Greek view, naturally, sympathetically as well as the Turkish view. The problem before us is to try to get a settlement that would be acceptable to them all. It is no good being partisan on one side Or the other. What we are trying to do, and I think still with signs which are not altogether unfavourable, is to get that settlement.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress has been made in Paris towards holding a conference on Cyprus?

The Prime Minister: There are certain discussions going on.

Mr. Grimond: The Prime Minister, as I understand, having ruled out partition and Archbishop Makarios having given up Enosis, cannot we go further and make a clear pronouncement that the future of Cyprus is a matter for the Cypriot people, possibly with our assistance in keeping order and with that of the United Nations and N.A.T.O. if needed, and that we have given up our claim to sovereignty over the island and our only interest is the welfare of the Cypriots themselves?

The Prime Minister: I think that that goes too far. We have certain duties, certain interests, and obligations and Cyprus has importance to us to fulfil our function in N.A.T.O. and defence generally. I saw the hon. Gentleman's Motion on the Order Paper.

[That this House is of the opinion that. Great Britain should declare that she has no desire to retain sovereignty over the island of Cyprus, except so far as is necessary to ensure the welfare of the Cypriot people, that the future of the island is a matter to be decided by Great Britain and the Cypriots; that every effort should be made not to disunite the population further; that Her Majesty's Government should grant self government to the island for its internal affairs, subject to guarantees for minorities to be enforced by Great Britain with the United Nations co-operation; and that, after a suitable and defined period, the Cypriots should he allowed to determine their own future and their relationship with the British Commonwealth and any other countries.]

It went too far in another direction. What is needed and what we are working for still is a plan which reconciles all the different points of view, where everybody gives up something and there is first a provisional settlement, if a final settlement cannot be got, but ultimately a final settlement which is fair to all.

Oral Answers to Questions — FREE TRADE AREA

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the negotiations in Paris over the Free Trade Area.

The Prime Minister: As the House will know, the O.E.E.C. Council of Ministers

devoted much of its meeting last Monday to the problem of the discrimination which could arise on 1st January next as between the Six and the rest of the O.E.E.C. countries.
In the course of the meeting, the Six explained what they intended to do to reduce the effects of this discrimination. The United Kingdom put forward an alternative proposal which was designed to avoid quota discrimination on a reciprocal basis and which attracted considerable support. It was decided that O.E.E.C. should work on both these proposals and that Ministers would meet again on 15th January.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Prime Minister whether we are to have a White Paper on this and press him to give us one, and whether he will do his best to explain what would happen to British industry if we were to go into the Common Market and, on the other hand, what would happen if it should be formed without us? Will the right hon. Gentleman also deal with the position of Austria, which would seem to be severely affected if a Common Market came into being with no Free Trade Area around it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have promised to produce a White Paper but, of course, we could not make it as comprehensive as I would wish without the express permission of the Council. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me that the Council, to use the common parlance, has agreed to derestrict the document concerned. Therefore, a White Paper is now being prepared and will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Jay: Have not hon. Members on all sides shown great patience in not debating this matter for six months in order not to impede the negotiations? Is it not rather unsatisfactory that we have no certain information except that the Government's efforts at negotiating have completely failed and that the discrimination against this country will begin before we can discuss the matter again?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can put his view in rather fierce language if he likes, but I think that our chiefest interest is to try to


bring this to a successful conclusion or at any rate to avoid the major dangers. The dangers are very great and, whether we ought to have debated it before or not, I welcome the fact that the Opposition has been very patient in not asking for a debate. But I do not think that it would have helped us to have had a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received a reply from the Soviet Prime Minister with regard to the agenda of a Summit Conference; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have not received an answer. I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and learned Member on 25th November.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the contents of the recent Soviet Note which was delivered to the N.A.T.O. Governments last Saturday could well form the basis of an agenda for a Summit Conference, and will not the right hon. Gentleman consider taking some initiative in view of the contents of that Note?

The Prime Minister: We have studied with care the contents of the Note, which is a long one. The reference to summit talks at first sight does not seem to be more than a passing one, but the problem of how to deal with the situation is being discussed in Paris between us and the major partners concerned and also with all the N.A.T.O. Powers. I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

TROOPS, CYPRUS (CONDITIONS)

Mr. Mellish: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take to improve accommodation conditions of United Kingdom troops in Cyprus; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I understand that this Question arose from a letter published yesterday in the Daily Mail. It

does not specify the unit concerned, so it is not possible for me to give a detailed report about the conditions complained of.
What I can tell the House is the general position about the supply of tents as we know it in the War Office. As a result of experience last winter, G.H.Q., Middle East, asked to be supplied with components for 2,700 tents in an improved material; and components for 2,400 tents in this material have already arrived in Cyprus.
Over and above this, as an insurance, 1,300 tents of the old type of material, which had been specially treated, were sent to Cyprus and arrived in September. I cannot, at such short notice, give the House details of the distribution of these tents, unit by unit, within the island, but hon. Members will see that there are sufficient for the stated needs of the garrison.
Needless to say, this complaint, which has come to notice, is already being urgently investigated. Hon. Members may also be assured that the welfare of the troops in Cyprus is, of course, of the closest concern to the local military authorities on the island and to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the General Officer commanding our troops in Cyprus is on record as having said that there are great deficiencies on the island? We have known that for a very long time, long enough, surely, to have had at least temporary hutted accommodation for the men. Now, at this time, we are told—we know it to be true, and others will support this statement—that many of our troops are living in deplorable conditions. How can the hon. Gentleman even attempt to justify that?

Mr. Fraser: I was merely pointing out that this is of great concern to my right hon. Friend. I would also point out that the situation in Cyprus is an emergency situation and that we cannot deal with an emergency situation by establishing permanent accommodation. If that had been so, in view of the emergencies we have had to deal with over the last ten years, it would have imposed an impossible burden. Naturally, our troops will be looked after as well as possible within the context of that emergency.

Mr. Speir: While allowing for the difficulties brought about by emergency conditions, is it not a fact, first, that there ought to be a vast improvement in the welfare and recreational facilities in Cyprus for troops of all three Services. as well as better accommodation? Secondly, in view of the apparent accuracy of the letter in the Daily Mail yesterday from the unidentified warrant officer, could we have an assurance from the Minister that special steps will not be taken to try to identify this warrant officer or to take disciplinary action against him for a breach of Queen's Regulations?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Fraser: Of course punitive steps will not be taken against this man. We are anxious to ensure, if there be difficulties as stated in the letter, that they should be put right.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is not something which has just come to light? In July, his Department had the Report of the Grigg Committee, which went out of its way to draw special attention to the fact that men had been living in tents in most unpleasant conditions for long periods. Paragraph 147 of the Committee's Report said:
We doubt whether enough had been done to make the lot of these men easier.
Later, the Committee stated that it was sure things had bean put right.
Now we discover that when the rains come, nearly six months later, apparently nothing has been done. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that merely assuring us that the War Office is doing its best is not sufficient in view of the fact that it was told by that Committee six months ago about this position and seems to have done very little?

Mr. Fraser: As the right hon. Gentleman must have noted from my Answer, a demand was made for this new type of tent and this new type of tent has been sent to Cyprus. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the distribution of troops in an emergency has to be in small units and that troops have, of course, to live in tents.

Mr. Brown: What I do know is that men are now in waterlogged tents, when

we were giving full warning six months ago that this would happen. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his duty is not to get angry with us but to get angry with whoever in the War Office failed to take action between July and November?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Fraser: As I said before, this matter is being urgently investigated.

Mr. Brown: Why leave it until now?

Mr. Fraser: As I have explained in my Answer, this request was made in the summer and it has been met.

Mr. Chetwynd: But can the Minister say when this request was met? Is he aware that I was given an assurance some months ago that everything would be all right for this winter and that it is absolute nonsense to get this kind of treatment now? What is being done urgently to put the position right?

Mr. Fraser: I have explained that the problem of tentage has been met. The request was for 2,700 tents and they have been delivered to Cyprus.

Hon. Members: When?

Mr. Mellish: May I ask a last question. Sir?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Later—

Mr. G. Brown: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I apologise for doing it now, but when you called my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), I thought we were still on the Private Notice Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I should like your guidance and advice.
The House rises this afternoon. We have none of the normal opportunities of asking the Under-Secretary what his researches have shown and what action he has been able—as, I have no doubt, he wishes to do—to take. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he could find an opportunity to make a public statement between now and Christmas as to the extent to which these troubles have been overcome?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary has heard what has been said. There is nothing that I can say on the matter.

Mr. Fraser: The House must understand that to investigate a complaint like this at such notice is considerably difficult. Of course, the whole machinery for investigation has been set in motion. I would add, further, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be visiting Cyprus during the Christmas Recess.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Benn: I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice, on a separate subject. It concerns the difficulty of putting down Questions about the refusal of the Portuguese Government to admit my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to Portugal. I would like to submit representations to you on this matter, Sir, which seems to me to raise a very important principle.

Mr. Speaker: Order, The hon. Member has put a question to me and I must answer it. The hon. Member asked me for a Ruling on the admissibility of Questions about the refusal by foreign Governments to grant visas to individual British subjects and, in particular, on the recent refusal by the Portuguese Government to grant a visa to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).
My predecessors have consistently refused Questions on such matters on the grounds that the Foreign Secretary has no responsibility for the action of another State in refusing entry to a British subject, and that, in fact, he never did make representations on such matters.
The hon. Member also asked me to rule whether Questions on the extent to which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation had machinery to deal with this matter would be in order. Since the North Atlantic Treaty gives that Organisation no power in regard to the entry of subjects of member States into each others territories, no Ministerial responsibility can be adduced which

would allow Questions to be accepted on this side of the matter. I understand that after discussion with the Table Office a Question on a related aspect of this matter has been drafted, and submitted to the hon. Member, which would be in order.

Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to you, Sir, for giving that answer, but I want to make representations in view of the circumstances of this particular case, in which the British Embassy. in Lisbon, having been notified of the visit, made arrangements for a banquet for my right hon. Friend, and, indeed, the Foreign Office, from the beginning, blessed this visit until, subsequently, after representations were made, it was refused.
If I may draw your attention to the words on the first page of passports, Mr. Speaker. you will see that
Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
There can be no greater let or hindrance than the refusal of a visa by a foreign country.
This is a matter of real substance in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is a member of the Privy Council. The reason why I have raised the question of N.A.T.O. is that if one of our allies in N.A.T.O. is likely to be overthrown by a couple of speeches by so mellow a radical as my right hon. Friend, this raises the whole question of the value of N.A.T.O. in the free world.

Mr. Speir: On a point of order. May I ask whether the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) informed his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that he would raise this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether he did or not. I would ask the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to realise that I am no judge, and if I were a judge I certainly would not express any views upon the merits of this matter. It has nothing to do with me. The hon. Member appealed to me on this point of order and I have told him that it has been frequently ruled in the past—


and I am bound by it—that the Foreign Secretary has no responsibility for the action of a foreign Government in refusing a visa to a British subject.
The hon. Member has quoted the time-honoured sonorous words with which a passport opens, but these words have been in existence for a long time, during the time that the Rulings of my predecessors on this matter have been given. It must be taken that in commanding persons to give assistance to British subjects, the Foreign Secretary is commanding those whom he can command. That does not include the Government of a foreign country.

Mr. Benn: My complaint is not that the Portuguese Government refused a visa to my right hon. Friend—that is absolutely within their power. My complaint is that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs failed to make any protest on behalf of this British subject. Indeed, if the words on the passport are so old as to have no meaning, might not the precedents which you have quoted also be held to be out of date for the same reason?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must argue the merits of this matter with the Foreign Secretary. He is only trying to argue with me about the admissibility of his Questions and I have to rule that they are inadmissible.

Mr. Younger: Is it not the fact that many Questions are put to the Foreign Secretary, and are accepted by the Table, on the lines of asking him to make representations to a foreign Government about something which is within the responsibility of that foreign Government? That is the whole purpose of diplomacy.
Surely, if the Foreign Secretary is asked to consult his allies on any policy matter regarding the N.A.T.O. Treaty, that is

something in which the foreign Government is asked to take action on a matter outside the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government but is something on which, nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government may make representations. What is the difference here?

Mr. Speaker: Apparently, the difference lies in the fact that the Foreign Secretary never makes representations about the refusal by a foreign country of a visa to a British subject. That is the difference here.

Mr. Younger: That may be so as a matter of policy, but surely, as a matter of order, the Foreign Secretary could make such representations. Is this not a matter of policy on which the Foreign Secretary should be asked to give an answer?

Mr. Speaker: That is an entirely different matter. I know, however, that in all cases of refusal of visas the Ruling has been that they are not a matter in which there is Departmental responsibility upon the Foreign Secretary. It is not part of his duty and, therefore, the Question is disallowed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have passed from this matter now. I must consider those hon. Members who have subjects for the Adjournment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

Mr. Hughes: No, Mr. Speaker. I would never dream of raising a point of order before the Christmas season.

Mr. Speaker: A very admirable sentiment.

BILLS PRESENTED

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Bill to alter the contributions payable to the National Insurance Fund under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1957, and the retirement benefits payable under those Acts, and in particular to provide for payment of a graduated retirement benefit in return for contributions related to the amount of a person's remuneration, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Iain Macleod, Miss Pitt, and Mr. Vane; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

STREET OFFENCES

Bill to make, as respects England and Wales, further provision against loitering or soliciting in public places for the purpose of prostitution, and for the punishment of those guilty of certain offences in connection with refreshment houses and those who live on the earnings of or control prostitutes, presented by Mr. R. A. Butler; supported by the Attorney-General, Miss Hornsby-Smith, and Mr. Renton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Speaker: Concerning the first of the subjects to be discussed on the Adjournment, in view of yesterday's debate I would hope that it can be concluded in shorter time than I originally allowed for it, when I did not know that there would be a debate on unemployment the previous day.

12.16 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: As you so rightly say, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity of discussing part of this matter during the debate yesterday, but the need for further development of industry in Northern Ireland is obvious and I must take a little time today to ask for further information on this matter.
We have at present in Northern Ireland great difficulty in getting sufficient diversity of industry. It has been made more difficult because of the situation which has occurred both internationally and nationally. We accept fully that our industry depends upon the state of international trade in general and upon the state of the United Kingdom economy in particular. There are, however, several points that were not answered in yesterday's debate and about which we might usefully speak today and on which we should continue to speak on future occasions until satisfactory answers have been achieved. I hope that today, however, we shall hear something that will help to bring cheer to Northern Ireland this Christmas.
I turn first to the aircraft industry. The aircraft industry in Northern Ireland is the only industry there in which the men now employed in it can be usefully employed, because there is no alternative for them if the aircraft industry fails to be maintained. We understand fully the problems that generally affect the aircraft industry in Great Britain, but this is a Government-sponsored and Government-controlled concern and we surely have a right to demand that we should get a fair share of anything which the Government can produce. We want to know why orders are not forthcoming after months and, indeed, years of delay in choosing a successor to the Beverley aircraft.
There is also the question of our textile industry to which I referred in yesterday's debate. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has kindly said that not only will he look into the question of stocks in America, but into the question of stocks at home, which is our major problem. I have some literature about it, but will not take the time of the House to read it. I can, however, assure the House that the problem of getting home retailers to keep stocks is getting difficult. Therefore, it is the manufacturers who must hold stocks. That, too, is difficult for those who work on small capital.
We have felt for many years that it would be a good thing if we could have a number of people from Her Majesty's Government coming across as a united body, not only to examine our difficulties., but to look into the good parts and the parts of our country which can be developed satisfactorily as a profitable industrial concern. This has been spoken of many times in successive conferences of the Ulster Unionist Members in Belfast, and, indeed, on many platforms.
We eventually achieved the Northern Ireland Development Council, under Lord Chandos, who has shown tremendous enthusiasm and who has made a great effort to bring more industry to Northern Ireland. However, he is essentially concerned with new industry and I make a plea for the existing industries which are having a difficult time in present circumstances.
We need industries which use a high proportion of labour to raw material in the product. We also need a number of small industries as well as a fair modicum of large concerns. We know very clearly that this is a difficult matter, as the President of the Board of Trade pointed out yesterday. We know that our services and all those other things which must go around and flow around an industry are not always so readily available in smaller pockets of communities spread here and there throughout the country.
However, we feel that the problem has been discussed too much and that not enough has been done to consider it from a regional point of view and to solve it as a regional problem. I wish that I had time to refer to the various areas where certain new concerns could be grafted on

to existing industries and where the present firms could be helped by the injection of capital or by a stimulation of trade which would make it possible for them to expand. They are already working on very small margins and in many cases with practically no profit at all.
We are still considering what can be done about transport costs and especially the cost of importing coal. Yesterday, one of the things which I did not have an opportunity to mention was that our coal seems to be corning to us from much greater distances before reaching the port of embarkation in this country and that those costs, I am informed, have increased by as much as 15s. a ton. Perhaps I can be given a reason why coal cannot be drawn from those coalfields from which we used to get it and from where we always got it before the coal industry was nationalised.
Another factor which has made it difficult to develop industry in Northern Ireland is that too much has been made of the difficulty of establishing industry in Northern Ireland because of the strip of water which separates us from the mainland. It has been thought that that has led to extra costs and extra difficulties. We are now slowly developing direct trading. For instance, there is now a system, not as widespread as it might be, but becoming more popular, of having ships come with direct imports from Australia and returning direct exports from Northern Ireland. That is the sort of idea which could be usefully explored and expanded and which might do a great deal to help, possibly more than one would expect.
Our failure has been in continuing to think in terms of the past. It is always thought that because something has not been successful elsewhere it cannot be successful in Northern Ireland. Britain has to do much re-thinking industrially and we must have increased efficiency if we are to expand our economy generally. Northern Ireland recognises that. Northern Ireland might in some cases be used as a testing area for new ideas and new methods of attaining industrial efficiency and expanding overseas trade.
The time has come when the people of Northern Ireland are no longer prepared to wait, and all hon. Members must be made aware of that. The Government must appreciate that, whatever else


happens, we shall continue to put the case for Northern Ireland as firmly and as strongly and as steadily as we can until satisfactory ways have been found of pulling together the industrial capabilities of Northern Ireland and bringing them to a level comparable with that of other parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something which will be of good cheer and practical for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that when I go home I shall be able to say that this quarter of a century of unemployment which has be devilled this part of the United Kingdom is now being recognised as something more difficult than is the case with any other part of the United Kingdom, and that in 1959 there will be a determined drive to help us to expand our industries, to improve those industries that we already have, and to revitalise the old and bring in the new so that Northern Ireland gets an opportunity to share in the expanding economy which we confidently expect next year.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: It gives me much pleasure to support the plea of the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) that the Government should do something to reduce the very serious unemployment in Northern Ireland. I can tell her that, in the past, my constituency, Rochester and Chatham, helped in a practical way when Short Bros. were sent to Belfast. That was done by the Labour Government to reduce the appalling unemployment in Northern Ireland at the time.
The Northern Ireland Government did not themselves adopt the distribution of industry legislation which the United Kingdom as a whole used to solve pressing unemployment problems. The growing unemployment in Northern Ireland is the joint responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government here.
The hon. Lady should understand that, whatever plea she makes to the Government, her hopes will not be realised. Since the war there have been two shattering events in my constituency which have upset the industries and the communities

of Rochester and Chatham. The first was the sending of Short Bros. to Belfast under the provisions of the distribution of industry legislation. However, other industry was then brought in and is now flourishing. The second event was the announcement this year that the Royal Navy was to leave Chatham. To date, no industry has been brought into the area to provide alternative employment.
While I join with the hon. Lady in pressing the Government to do something about unemployment in Northern Ireland, I warn her that they will do as little as they have done for my area.

12.26 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I want very briefly to support the plea of my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) that there should be further development of industry in Northern Ireland. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) that our hopes will not be realised. With my faith in the Government, I believe that they will be realised.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for an injection of further capital to stimulate trade. The salient feature of our economic difficulties in Northern Ireland is the shortage of capital compared with that of Great Britain. Our population is approximately 2·5 per cent. of the population of Great Britain, while the amount of capital invested in companies registered in Northern Ireland is only 1·15 per cent. of that invested in a similar manner in Great Britain. That shows that in Northern Ireland we have less than half the capital invested per head of the population compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Finding investment opportunities in Northern Ireland is a major problem. Today, there are only 33 public companies registered on the Belfast Stock Exchange compared with 65 in 1914. That is because more than 90 per cent. of our industrial concerns in Northern Ireland are private companies and are not likely to attract money from local investors in Great Britain, except in very special circumstances.
English finance companies are willing to put up money for long-term risk capital, but, naturally, they expect to


obtain some control of the company in question, and that proposition is resisted by the proprietors of those companies in Ulster. No doubt for the same reason, local companies are reluctant to raise money by public issue.
The solution which I suggest is not new and I have not heard any official reason why it should not be put into operation. It is worth close study, and it is the setting up of a Government-sponsored industrial finance and development corporation. We have the Chandos Development Council, which does excellent work, but that is primarily concerned with new industries.
The objects of such a development and finance corporation can be briefly summarised. The first is to provide new firms with capital, or to help them to obtain capital from the public by forming themselves into public companies and issuing shares; secondly, to provide existing firms—and this is very important—with additional capital, or help them to raise it from the public in order either to increase their scale of operations, or to put their finances on a sound basis where they have been crippled through being forced to rely on bank overdrafts and consequently become under-capitalised; thirdly, to provide cash resources for the proprietors of our private companies in order to meet death duties; and, finally, to assist in and arrange for financial reconstruction and amalgamations, especially of private companies wishing to become public companies, and to make public issues of their shares.
Such corporations have been set up with conspicuous success in various parts of the Commonwealth, notably South Africa and Canada. They have also been set up in the Republic of Ireland. I am convinced that if something in the nature of a finance company, with a capital of between £2 million and £3 million, were set up in Northern Ireland. it would be a tremendous help towards solving our present economic difficulties. I most sincerely implore Her Majesty's Government to give this question their special consideration.

12.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) is to be congratulated on making such full

use of her Parliamentary opportunities, and we are glad that she should do so. We shall take good note not only of the interesting points she made in her eloquent speech last night. but also those that she has made today.
The House will have noted that in yesterday's debate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade devoted an important part of his speech to the problems of Northern Ireland. Although, constitutionally, industrial development is primarily a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland, in practice there is the closest co-operation between our two Governments at all levels. United Kingdom Departments do all they can to help the Departments of the Government of Northern Ireland in their efforts to encourage the development of industry in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the visits made by Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have been to Northern Ireland on separate occasions this year, and I am glad to say that, soon after his recent appointment, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made arrangements to go to Northern Ireland early in January to see things for himself, to confer with the Minister of Commerce of the Northern Ireland Government, and to meet business men and all those who are concerned with the problems of industrial development there.
This House has great sympathy with the efforts of the Northern Ireland Government to overcome the difficult facts of geography, and we greatly admire the results so far achieved. But for those efforts the distressingly high unemployment figure would have been even higher. Ulster has comparatively few natural resources, but makes up for this by the enterprise and initiative of its people, and by offering exceptional inducements to attract industry.
Here I would like to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend about the injection of capital. By making grants which are generally of at least 25 per cent. for new industries and for the development of existing enterprises, and by providing Government-owned factory space, the Government of Northern Ireland are able to attract new development there, and each new development


involves the injection of fresh capital. I hope that that will help to improve the position referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde), about the capital invested per head of population.
Those inducements continued to bear fruit even during the recent period of credit restriction, but the expansion of industrial activity which may be expected to result from the measures which our Government have taken in recent months, in order to stimulate the economy in general, should benefit Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom.
The efforts of the Northern Ireland Government to attract and furher develop industry in the way that I have mentioned are supplemented by the work of the Board of Trade in steering industry to Northern Ireland by suggesting to firms with new development projects that, if possible, they should go where there is unemployment. As my right hon. Friend described in yesterday's debate, a number of such suggestions made by the Board of Trade in respect of Northern Ireland have been taken up.
As a result of the Board of Trade's influence, together with the efforts of the Ministry of Commerce of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Development Council, under Lord Chandos, every firm with a new project which might conceivably be developed in Ulster is made aware of the advantages which Ulster can offer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West asked me to say something about the aircraft industry. I understand that in regard to the future development of the Britannia, whether in Ulster or elsewhere, it is important that the question of export credit guarantees should receive consideration—and it has done, as the House knows. The normal maximum term for which export credit guarantees can be given is five years, but an exception has been made in the case of such large civil aircraft as the Britannia. In those cases seven years is the period. That should be of some help to Northern Ireland.
As for other aircraft developments, there is to be a debate later today in

which the future of the whole aircraft industry will be discussed. I will, therefore, confine myself to saying that the Government are well aware of the serious effect which a withdrawal of activity from Short and Harlands would have upon the employment position in Belfast, and that in regard to the air freighter contracts, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West referred yesterday, we are anxious to do what can be done. But I have no further statement to make at this moment. The matter is under close and immediate consideration.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has asked me to say that among the various other points which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West mentioned, that concerning stocks will be carefully considered.
In conclusion—since I understand that there is a need not to prolong this debate, in view of yesterday's debate—I would simply say that in overcoming the difficult facts of geography to which I have referred the people of Northern Ireland have shown great initiative and skill. With the help of the Dollar Exports Council and Lord Chandos' Council a vigorous sales effort is being made. The Government of Northern Ireland have shown themselves willing to give every encouragement and assistance to those firms who are willing to help themselves, and I can assure my hon. Friends that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give most serious consideration to any proposals which the Government of Northern Ireland may make to assist the further development of industry in that loyal part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bottomley: Is not this most unsatisfactory? Surely the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) is aware that a reasonable answer has not been given to the case she presented yesterday and this morning. Why do we have a second-hand reply from a Minister who is not responsible for providing trade and employment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Home Office is responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland.

SCIENCE (GOVERNMENT AID)

12.39 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting the subject of Government aid to science as one of the matters to be discussed today. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is equally obliged. It is unfortunate that Parliament does not have more opportunities to discuss a matter which is of vital concern to us all.
I am raising this matter today especially because, a few weeks ago, when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about the resources devoted to scientific research for civil purposes, he gave a very complacent reply. He quoted figures which, on the face of them, appeared to be not unfavourable, but he made no allowance for the falling value of the £, and did not reply to my further question about the figures for the quinquennium. I hope that he can provide some encouraging information about that this afternoon.
I am sure that my view, that we are not devoting sufficient resources to scientific research, is generally shared. This is certainly the view of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and I would call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to its conclusion, which is contained in its last Report. It says:
We gravely doubt the adequacy of these resources for all that we are charged to do, embracing as it does not only the undertaking and support of both pure and applied research to meet the needs of industry and the civil needs of Government, but also the provision of grants for training scientists and technologists and for helping British academic research maintain its world position. In those industries that do not benefit directly from research done primarily for defence purposes the value of production approaches £10,000 million a year. By contrast, the Department receives less than £10 million a year for all its activities.
This is a view which is echoed in the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.
Again, I call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to what it says:
The resources devoted to civil research and development have been, and still are, far too small for a country whose competitive position in world trade is dependent upon the economic development of new products and

new processes and where the achievement of a rising standard of living must depend mainly upon our success in increasing the productivity of the labour force.
I hope that the Home Secretary, at any rate, has read that paragraph of the Report. if we are to increase our standard of living we have got to devote far more resources to scientific research. This is not only a question of finance, but also one of the recognition and public esteem which we afford to science generally.
We often turn to the Soviet Union, but by way of change I turn to the United States. I think that the National Science Board of the United States has a position entirely different from that of D.S.I.R. or any comparable body in this country. I would call in aid the statement recently made by the chairman of the Board when he said that the Board was
permeated by devotion to the belief that the furtherance of science enriches the intellectual and spiritual life of the people of our country, broadens and deepens the quality of our culture and ennobles our national ideals.
I think that we in this country have to try to take a similar approach to science. Science will certainly affect not only the way in which we live, but also the way in which we think. We should take a bolder approach to science—as the Americans are trying to do.
To return to this country. Without entering into the arguments as to how much the resources should come from within the different sectors of industry itself and how much they should be State-aided, and without necessarily entirely accepting the American concept, even if we look forward with more materialistic purposes, I think that it is quite clear that what we need is a more wholehearted support for fundamental and basic research. It is here, I think, that we have a good deal of cause for concern.
To avoid generalities I will particularise for a moment by calling in aid a fairly recent article in Nature about matters which come, I think, within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary. It says:
How far successive British post-war Governments have been from such an approach can be demonstrated by referring to their treatment of Recommendations of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy regarding the National Lending and Reference Libraries for Science and Technology, the shelving of the whole project for a Science Centre, and the futilities which in the name of economy have recently interrupted work on the Isaac Newton Telescope and the appointment of an administrator with no scientific, technological or legal


training in the comptrollership of the Patent Office. Even the admitted shortage of scientists and technologists has not brought the Government to appreciate what is wrong, or to take the steps that would avoid the present wastage of man-power and lead to greater efficiency, and real and not imaginary economies.
I am quoting Nature with a clear conscience, because these are all matters which I have raised in the House at Question Time and upon which I feel that I have had unsatisfactory Answers from the Parliamentary Secretary.
This is a matter which is even more important today because we have this lack of appreciation of the importance of scientific research against the changing pattern and scope of defence expenditure. It so happens that defence in itself as an objective provides an impetus. We have had a good deal of scientific research which has been invaluable to civil research in the guise of defence expenditure. In fact, I believe that if we take the whole £300 million which is expended annually on research only £68 million has, in fact, been provided by private industry. Therefore, now is the time to concentrate on the importance of scientific research. This is a much wider subject than mere aeronautical research, a matter which will be discussed later today.
First, as I say, I think that we have to face the problem of the lessening of an impetus which has been a real driving power behind scientific research in the last few years. We have also to pay attention to the fact that thousands of scientists and many more assistants will be thrown out of the work which they are at present carrying on. This will provide a problem for all those interested in research. It will also, incidentally, create a misleading impression.
There has been a good deal of concentration on the problem of the shortage of scientific manpower, and the release of some of these scientists engaged in defence research may, unfortunately, detract from the attention that we have to give to the question of getting a greater scientific manpower. But there are other problems which arise from these redundancies. The first is that it is very important to keep many of these people together in the teams in which they have been working. Scientific research nowadays is very much a team effort. We do not want disintegration where it can be avoided.
We can still ill afford—I know that scientific research is an extraordinary difficult problem, and I would not generalise about it—to evade main priorities. We have to see that as we are short of scientific manpower we make the best use of such talents as we have available. There is a very real risk, if some of these scientists become redundant on defence work, that they might not be employed in the most profitable work elsewhere.
This is a matter in which the Government ought to assist, but I would emphasise the three major propositions which I am putting to the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that the Government, I believe, must be mainly responsible for fundamental and basic research, and that this is a matter of wider importance than merely scientific research. Anyone who listened to Professor Lovell's Reith Lectures would realise that this is something fundamental to our way of living in society. The second is that, even apart from fundamental and basic research, a good deal of scientific research has, probably, to be Government-aided in one form or another. We certainly cannot afford to neglect requisite research because of the failure of civil industry to devote sufficient resources to it.
The third problem that remains is that we have, by one means or another, to persuade industry to devote more resources to research. This is not a reflection on all sectors of industry, but it is a reflection on many of its sectors. I would accept the figure frequently given of I per cent. of turnover of the manufacturing industry as the figure which ought to be spent by it on research. If this is a requisite target, there is some responsiblity on the Government for seeing that we reach that target, because this is a vital matter to the future progress of Britain. We cannot afford to go on making unfavourable comparisons between ourselves and the Soviet Union or the United States, which, on a comparable basis spend twice as much as we do on research.
I was very pleased to see that the Minister of Supply made a statement yes-day which I thought was very constructive, and is probably a very profitable path to follow. As I understand, he was recognising that many of the research facilities in Government hands might not


be fully employed for defence, and he is seeking to find what use we can make of these facilities for private industry. I welcome that sort of approach, which would meet some of the objectives which I have mentioned.
Finally, I should like to say a word or two about the D.S.I.R. I do so humbly, because I am not an expert in these matters. I put forward the suggestion, with no reflection on Sir Harry Jephcott, that we ought possibly now to consider the appointment of a full-time chairman for the D.S.I.R. I feel that we should try, in the light of what I have said, to increase the status and authority of the D.S.I.R. It seems to me, and I say this with a good deal of circumspection, that the D.S.I.R. has lost ground over the past few months.
D.S.I.R. may be affected by the general Governmental objective to secure economy, and no one would complain about that in itself, but D.S.I.R. ought not to be distracted from the major driving purpose of ensuring greater resources for scientific research. I have no objection to the proposition that facilities should be available within private industry wherever possible, but I do not want Government aid for research to be hampered by such an objective, because it is dangerous.
Some of the steps which have really been taken, such as the Pest Infection Laboratory being transferred to A.R.C. and the Forestry Products Research Laboratory being transferred to the Timber Development Association, are steps which may have been taken on grounds which I cannot criticise, but they leave some doubt and they have not been dealt with very satisfactorily; and that brings me to the question of the N.P.L. Microbiology Group. This has had a good deal of publicity recently and I cannot speak on the merits of it, because I am not expert on these matters, and, therefore, it would be very wrong to express any view about it.
However, one can certainly criticise the way in which it has been done, because there has been no consultation with the head of the group, and no consultation, as far as I know, with the important people in the field of economic micrology. This may detract from the driving power and feeling of purpose which ought to be behind this research. I cannot express

any views upon the merits of the steps taken, but I can say, and, I think, speak for all interested generally, that they are somewhat disturbed by the way in which it has been done. I hope that the Lord President of the Council is aware of this.
May I conclude by saying that I should have thought that his was an admirable appointment. Whatever we may say in criticism of the Lord President of the Council, he has an admirable vigour and vitality, though I think that it is sometimes misapplied in the political field. Quite frankly, I would say that I was one of those who very much welcomed his appointment as Minister of Education. I thought that his lively and original mind might have contributed much in that sphere. He has a fine opportunity here, and I should like the Lord President to devote far more of his talents, and ability, drive and vigour to ensuring that sufficient attention is paid to scientific research.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), because I should like to echo his praise of the present occupant of the office of Lord President of the Council. He is a worthy successor to those remarkable Lords President we have had since the end of the war, whom, I think, have had added to the prestige and drive which has undoubtedly developed in this country in scientific fields.
I should like to make two comments on the hon. Gentleman's speech, which, if we had more time, might lead to a wider and profitable discussion. We are all agreed about some Government responsibility for fundamental research, but surely it is only in a limited field that that is true, because the right place for fundamental research, I should have thought, is in the universities. Where the Government have to come in is where enormously expensive equipment is needed, as for example, in fields like nuclear physics, in which, perhaps, we have overcome the problem at the present time, aerodynamics, and in telecommunications. In these fields, there is a genuine place for the Government, and we have to give a good deal more thought to how best a Government can help.
The other point concerns the recent difficulties of the problem of defence expenditure and the research which has


arisen from it, the problem of redundancy which may occur as defence expenditures are reduced, and what will happen to the teams of scientists who have been working on research arising from defence projects. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned priorities in research, which, I agree, is a very sensitive subject, and I should, therefore, like to address a few remarks to this last point of priorities.
I think that, with the four research councils, we have a mechanism which, in part, has been working well for determining research priorities and sets a pattern which could be more widely applied than it has been so far. There are two older bodies, the Medical Research Council and the D.S.I.R., and the more recent ones, one going back to about twenty-five years ago and the other a post-war development, the Agricultural Research Council and the Nature Conservancy. They discussed their duties very interestingly in the University Grants Committee's Report for 1952–57. They provide alternative sources of funds to the universities so that those who have lines of research which they wish to pursue have other sources of money than the universities or charitable foundations to whom they can apply. If the most obvious sources will not take an interest and give grants.
The research councils have done a splendid job in stimulating lines of research which, for the reason I mentioned just now, may have been neglected for a time. The outstanding position which this country has gained in the fields of biophysics and in virology, and the Nobel Prize winners who have benefited from research council grants is a credit to the work which has been done by the research councils in spotting these fields of research needing money even before it was clear to the universities.
The other thing the research councils have been able to do is to deal directly with university departments engaged in research. One of the problems always presented to the University Grants Committee is that it had to give money for the whole university, leaving the university to sort out which departments should have the money. The research councils have been able to give help to the individual departments and individual workers and so have taken off the

shoulders of the University Grants Committee the invidious job of choosing between different departments and research workers.
The sums of money which the research councils disbursed is about £10 million a year, or one-third less than the universities are spending on research work. So they are undoubtedly playing an important part, confirmed in financial terms, in the development of fundamental research in universities and institutions outside universities. The need for them has been proved by their past success in stimulating work in directions which might have been otherwise neglected, and by the amount of money which they are disbursing and which are of the same order as those spent by the universities themselves.
I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary on the general policy of the Government towards science. We want to maintain, in speeding up research and giving it greater prestige, a policy of diversity. We cannot tolerate anywhere in the intellectual life of this country that we should look just to one centre for getting the money for going ahead with ideas. I hope that we may hear from the Government that they not only recognise the importance of the research councils, but regard them as a symbol of the need for diversity, which is essential if we are to continue increasing the standard and the rate of scientific research here.

1.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I know it would be my noble Friend's wish that my first words should be to accept with thanks the kindly comments that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made about the personal qualities of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. They were supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). For my own part, as the hon. Gentleman forecast, I can only say that I am grateful for having this opportunity to tell the House rather more about the Government's support for science than it is possible to do during the normal Question hour, contentious and keen though the hon. Member for Sunderland, North is during Question Time.
In the short time that I have at my disposal I shall, for the most part, confine my remarks to the Government's support for civil science. It is worthwhile to underline the fact that a good proportion of the great expenditure on the promotion of science for defence purposes produces many results which have important applications in civil industry. Not only in defence have we those byproducts. The Government funds made available to the Atomic Energy Authority on such a generous scale have secured for this country a leading position, if not the leading position, in the development of nuclear science for peaceful purposes. We have these things in our mind, but I do not want to dwell upon them in my short time today.
I would leave the House in no doubt that, in the development of civil science, this nation certainly has a success story to tell. It is a good thing to underline it, because one sometimes feels that some of our fellow-countrymen have a tinge of doubt whether we as a nation have recognised the importance of full scientific development as compared with some of the other great nations. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North did that to some extent today. I do not think that there need be any doubt at all on this score.
After all, it is results that count. Over a fairly broad front we can produce a really impressive list of results. For example there is our pure and applied scientific research on the atom. We can point to the brilliant work of our chemists which has brought three Nobel prizes to this country in the last three years, to Sir Alexander Todd. Sir Cyril Hinshelwood and Dr. Sanger. Then there is the development of the electronic computer, which may well revolutionise our way of life in the years immediately ahead. Nor must we forget, on the other side—this is a topic which I know interests the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—the benefit accruing now, and that will continue to accrue over the centuries, from the new knowledge obtained for the chemical control of agricultural weeds. These are dramatic results which often hit the headlines and I have underlined them again, but we have to remember that they are only a small part of the total achievement which flows from our general scientific research.
It is well to remind the House that since the war the general pattern of Government support for civil science has been directed through four main channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe referred to them and it is well to repeat them again. First, there is the research undertaken in the Government's own research institutions, grouped under the four research councils, the D.S.I.R., the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Nature Conservancy. Second, are Government grants to 49 research associations and similar bodies. Third, is the Government support for basic research through the universities, both through the University Grants Committee and by the direct grants administered by the research councils.

Mr. Willey: This was the point made by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I was dealing with Government support for scientific research, including the research by the universities.

Mr. Nicholls: I had rather taken that point into account. I knew what the hon. Gentleman meant.
The fourth channel is that the Government keeps under review the country's needs for scientific manpower and plans for the expansion of scientific and technical education at all levels. This last channel is designed to ensure an adequate supply of suitably trained scientists and engineers for the great scientific developments in the future. This is very important, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is very high on the list of priorities.
I will deal with the individual research councils. Over the last twenty years—this is part of the success story—there has been very considerable growth in expenditure and staff. Since 1951, the expenditure has doubled, having risen from £10 million to £20 million. If we break those figures down over the last two years we can see the improvement. The increase in the D.S.I.R. has been 23 per cent., in the Medical Research Council, 34 per cent., in the Agricultural Research Council 20 per cent., and in the Nature Conservancy 25 per cent. These figures give a clear indication of the rate of expansion, quite apart from the monetary value to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred.
The House will remember that it was decided, some years ago., to adopt the experiment of financing the D.S.I.R. on a five-year basis. This is the point on which the hon. Member asked me a question. I can make an announcement upon it for which he has been probing over the last few weeks. The Government have decided to repeat for a further five years this experiment, which was designed to provide a basis for long-term planning of research. It will be repeated because it has proved to be successful so far. As before, the financial provisions of the new five-year plan are subject to the necessary funds being voted annually by Parliament, and must be subject to review either in the event of a marked change in the economic situation or of major changes in costs. That must be on the record.
In the first quinquennium which ends on 31st March next, the total amount spent by the Department over the five-year period is likely to be approximately £36 million. For the next quinquennial period a considerable expansion of the Department's activities is proposed, and the total of approximately £61 million is envisaged. Expansion will continue at a steady rate throughout the period of the five years. For the year 1963–68, expenditure is planned to reach the £14 million mark. That is exclusive of certain items, the biggest of which is the United Kingdom contribution to the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. That and others will continue to be financed outside the five-year plan on which I have commented.

Mr. Fort: How much of the money for the D.S.I.R. is for its disbursements in grants and how much for other expenditure?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry; I have not got the breakdown of the figures. I only recently had clearance to make the announcement of the global amount. I do not doubt that we can come to that later and that we shall discuss the matter on other occasions.
I turn to the question of the research associations. I wish to pay a real tribute to this movement. Since I have been looking into it, over the last two years, it has become quite clear to me that it provides a most effective and economical means of encouraging research on behalf of industry as a whole. At present there

are 39 research associations and 10 smaller organisations in the D.S.I.R. scheme. These employ a staff of 4,500, of whom one-third are of graduate status. About 20,000 firms, covering about 50 per cent. of manufacturing industry, are members of research associations. These associations spent about £7 million in 1957–58, of which the D.S.I.R. contributed about £1¾ million in the form of revenue grants. The balance came mainly from industrial subscriptions.
Under the next five-year plan the amount available to research associations will be increased from £1¾ million to over £2 million a year, but in announcing what may seem to be a modest figure I should say that that does not tell the whole story because the Government grants are in proportion to the contributions coming from industry. Therefore, the extra contribution I have mentioned is expected to result in industry increasing its contribution more than proportionately. One increase presupposes another bigger increase and the total result will be much more than the £250,000 I have mentioned by way of increase of our grant.
I now turn to university research. Good though all this is, we know that applied research and development cannot flourish without a firm foundation of basic research, and for this it is proper that we should look mainly to the universities. In full recognition of this, the research councils provide post-graduate training awards of various kinds to encourage a steady flow of trained research workers from the universities. They also support promising research projects at universities and technical colleges by a system of research grants. A large expansion has been taking place and more is planned in this field for the immediate future.
For example, the D.S.I.R. has planned to increase the number of post-graduate awards to students by about 10 per cent. each year for the next five years and to increase between threefold and fourfold the amount available for research in universities and similar institutions. It is expected that, by 1963–64, 3,800 students will be in receipt of D.S.I.R. grants for training and research, as against 1,900 this year. That is a considerable increase and it is some answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe, although today I am not in a


position to give him details of the actual costs.
While, undoubtedly, we must look to the universities to make a major contribution to the country's effort in basic research, they are also responsible for providing the teachers and scientists for the future. This was clearly in the mind of the Government when recently building projects were announced. As the House knows, in the current year university building projects to the value of £12 million are being started. The same amount is to be authorised for 1959. The programme for the following four years—1960–63—has been provisionally agreed at £15 million start a year. That is not to say that it can all be spent and for that reason I use the phrase, "£15 million start a year."
The technical college building programme, to the value of about £15 million a year, has been in hand since the end of 1956. If one adds all that together, we cannot be accused of complacency, even though I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North suggested that in the kindest way. Never before has the country spent so much on new buildings for universities, on techical colleges and schools. These massive plans for expansion aim at doubling the output of scientists and engineers by 1970 compared with 1955. This endeavour has made an encouraging start.
Between 1955 and 1957 the combined output of scientists and engineers from the universities and technical colleges has risen from 11,000 to 13,000. The number of students entering university departments of science and technology has been increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. a year since 1954. More students are taking advanced courses in the technical colleges. More than 10,000 Higher National Certificates and diplomas were awarded in 1957, compared with 8,600 in 1955. This year about 1,000 students started on advanced courses for the new Diploma in Technology, compared with fewer than 600 in the previous year. There is every reason to suppose that the target output of 20,000 set for the late 1960s will be achieved.
I do not want to appear complacent, but on these grounds I feel justified in saying we have a success story so far. All the portents are that it will grow in a way which will be satisfactory to those

of us particularly interested in the subject, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe and others who would like to have spoken in the debate. We recognise the vital importance to a country like ours, which depends so much on being at the head of ideas to maintain its population.
I must say a word about the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The Government provide some financial support to both these distinguished bodies. For instance, they make a considerable contribution to the Royal Society's activities in connection with the International Geophysical Year but they also make annual grants in support of the Society's regular activities. These sums are not very big compared with what we spend on our own establishments, but the Government regard them as money well spent. The wisdom and prestige of the Royal Society—both nationally and internationally—are important assets to the progress of scientific research and education in this country.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North indicated, it is quite impossible in such a short time to answer all the many points which have been put in the two speeches we have heard, or to do more than sketch in broad outline the way the Government are facing the modern challenge of scientific and technical development. If any hon. Member wishes to pursue by letter any of the points I have had to omit, my noble Friend would give them full consideration.
I should say a final word on the reference the hon. Member made to the decision of the D.S.I.R. Research Council to disperse the Industrial Microbiological Unit at Teddington. I understand that that decision was taken entirely on scientific merits and without any intervention by my noble Friend or any other Minister. Indeed, for a Minister to give a direction on a matter of this kind—which, as the hon. Member said, is wholly within the scientific responsibility of the D.S.I.R. Research Council—would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act which we recently passed. My noble Friend is satisfied that the matter was given extremely careful thought by the Council before it came to this decision. He especially asked me to say that he will be ready to answer any questions by


letter if any hon Member would like to write to him about it.
I say again how grateful I am to have had the opportunity of giving this rather longer report than we have been able to give in the past, I hope that what flows from this debate will enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to enjoy their Christmas much more than if this statement had not been made.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: Before this debate is closed, would the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the sordid skeleton in the cupboard in relation to his success story which is surrounded by the £65 million financial assistance which the Government are giving? I refer to the £130,000 still outstanding on the capital cost of construction of what no doubt is one of the most brilliant scientific achievements of which this country can boast, the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope.
This money has been outstanding for a long time and attached to this debt is a smear. It may have been created by the Press; at any rate, it is disseminated through the Press, against the whole operation. As the Minister knows, the original estimate for this construction was about £700,000, but over the eight years of construction and improvements the cost became £130,000 more and, so far, the Government have refused to meet the extra cost.
I ask the Minister to understand what discouragement this means to the scientists working on this brilliant conception, to United Steel, which built it, and everyone concerned, including Manchester University. All are entitled to a tremendous amount of credit for their work, but they feel there is a slur on that because of the publicity which has been given to the over-estimation. There is an apparent confirmation of the slur by the refusal of the Government to pay the £130,000, which is a pitiful sum in relation to the amounts that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in his speech.
Throughout the world the impression is being created that the Government refuse to meet this sum—I know they are prepared to grant sums of £50,000, and so on, from time to time to meet running costs—through some suspicion and lack

of confidence in the achievement. When we consider the sums involved in relation to the achievement and the amount which Communist countries spend on achievements of this kind, surely there is a case for the Government reconsidering the question. What would Russia be prepared to pay to have this project?
I know that the Minister may not be competent to give me a direct assurance now, but I informed him that I would raise this matter and I have informed the office of the Lord President of the Council. The hon. Gentleman may have some information. Unfortunately, we have not much time to discuss the matter, but I hope that he will be able to give an assurance about this debt.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I think that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) prefaced his remarks by saying that he was asking a question and, therefore, I may not have to ask leave to speak again.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The remarks were too long to obviate that necessity. The hon. Gentleman must ask permission of the House to speak again.

Mr. Nicholls: With permission of the House, I will answer the hon. Member. There was a Question today on the Order Paper the Answer to which will be contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Although the Question was not reached, it will be dealt with by way of a Written Answer.
The comments made by the hon. Member will be carefully examined and taken into account by my noble Friend. He is interested in these matters and, as has been commented, he is keen and vigorous in pursuing points made in this House. The Department has already put £350,000 into this project. The comments of the hon. Member may not have left that impression. The Public Accounts Committee addressed a query to the Treasury on this point. When the Treasury assured the Committee that there was no contemplation of the £130,000 being meet out of voted moneys directly or indirectly, the Committee, with one exception, welcomed the answer.
I put it in the context that this is a matter which the House itself raised and, when it had an answer at that stage that no voted money should be spent on covering this item, it welcomed the


answer. Having said that, it is a fact that £15,200 has been offered for extra equipment. If they want any other new equipment and make out their case, as no doubt they will be able to make it out, the request will be favourably considered.
I assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter by letter or by interview, my noble Friend will be glad to help him.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I will detain the House for only a few moments, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) would like to begin his Adjournment debate.
I wish to ask a question about the Microbiological Unit at Teddington. I am bound to say that I found the Minister's remarks extremely disappointing. The whole scientific world realises the magnificent work which this unit has done. It is unique in character. It is felt that before this very valuable scientific adjunct is dispersed, the Lord President of the Council should consider the matter, because there is widespread consternation and dismay about the decision. It is felt among scientists that this decision has not been given the attention at the highest level which it deserves. I make the plea that even at this stage the Lord President will consider representations before this unique body is disbanded.

TRADE WITH THE FAR EAST

1.27 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Following the discussion of that very interesting subject of scientific research, may I switch the thoughts of the House to the Far East? As the time is limited, I propose to curtail my remarks and to make them applicable to the Far East, in particular, rather than the Sino-Soviet part of the subject. I hope that if the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will have an opportunity to dot the i's and cross the t's of what I say.
On 2nd December I drew attention to the speed with which the picture was

changing in the Far East through the extraordinary development taking place in China and to the necessity for our readjusting our thinking about the likelihood of it affecting the United Kingdom economy. I said that we should consider how we can adjust ourselves to the impact of this change.
Agricultural production in China last year rose by 80 per cent. For the first time she has a huge rice surplus. Her wheat production has risen by 15 million tons and her production of soya beans and oil has risen by a corresponding amount. Her cotton crop has been doubled in the last eighteen months. Industrial production is up during the last twelve months by 60 per cent. At the Canton Fair this year 20,000 items of industrial production were on exhibition, and it is interesting to note that 5,000 of them were new in the history of Chinese manufacture.
May I give one or two other figures? In 1957, the Chinese produced 5 million tons of steel, and the estimate for 1958 is 10 million tons. The actual production of coal in 1957 was 117 million tons, and the revised estimate for Chinese production of coal in 1958 is 260 million tons. The scale of this advance is at lightning speed. In 1956, there were 6 million cotton spindles; in 1958, 8 million; and in 1959, 10 million. In 1957–58, they installed 72,000 worsted spindles.
The repercussions are obvious to anyone who is fortunate enough to go to Hong Kong, Japan and other parts of the Far East. If one stands at the waterfront at Hong Kong, watches the consumer goods pouring in and then examines the figures which support one's visual evidence, the urgency and the magnitude of this problem is clearly apparent.
China, with her cotton grown on the spot, more than matches America in cotton production this year; the American estimate this year is 2½ million tons and the Chinese estimate is 3½ million tons. Think of what that means in terms of the domestic production of cotton cloth. We have Japan in the rôle of an offshore island, buying her cotton from America and her industrialists grumbling to us about the price they are having to pay to America for cotton. They complain that it is hopeless to compete with


China on the basis of China growing her own cotton and producing cotton goods and on the basis of the low wage rates in China. This has an impact on Hong Kong, too. It forces Hong Kong to produce cheaper and keeps the wages low.
The likely exportable surplus of Chinese rice could have a tremendous effect on the economies of Burma and Thailand. Those two economies rely on the export of rice, and they can be ruined if this rice is unloaded on to the world market. We know, too, of the problems arising from the pattern of trade in the Far East vis-à-vis Japan and of the tactical reasons for the admission of Japanese wool goods into America, distorting trade throughout the world. America gives a better chance for Japanese textiles to enter her market than she gives for our wool textiles.
We know, too, of the situation which exists between China and Japan through their inability to came to arrangements about a resumption of trade. China is purchasing large amounts of wool tops from Bradford. During the last eight months of this year, out of a total of £12 million worth of goods exported to China from the United Kingdom, Bradford has been responsible for £5 million worth of wool tops. This is vulnerable, because if the politicians have their way in Japan there will be a resumption of trade with China. Wool tops will be part of that trade and the trade now coming to Bradford will go to Japan. That is the kind of distortion which is taking place.
I do not consider that at present China is first-class in terms of marketing her products. I do not think that there are many products which are scientifically marketed by China at present. Nevertheless, the position is causing consternation throughout the Far East. India, about whom we have been rightly concerned because of her low income per head, is particularly worried, as is Ceylon. Perhaps I may give an example, tea. The Chinese are now making an orderly marketing of tea on the London market, which will be followed by many other commodities in the near future. This position has its impact on more items than those which I have mentioned.
I am certain that the impact of China on the trade of Hong Kong, the Far East

and this country is also having an effect on considerations of the European Common Market. May I say that the objections which the French raised to the export of goods from Hong Kong may have some justification. I think that that statement would be supported by the hon. Member for Preston, South; we have doubts about how the system is working.
Let us compare the speed with which China has made her development in the last year or two with our action over the Hong Kong cloth quotas. We have accepted a situation in which negotiations on this subject have to take place between industry and industry. A settlement has not yet taken place. I am giving this as an example to illustrate the slow speed with which we work. A settlement may not be reached for many weeks, simply because of inadequate policy on the part of the Government. Had the Government had the slightest idea of a policy on the adjustment which needs to take place at present vis-à-vis old-established, traditional industries in this country on account of the emergence of a Chinese economic colossus, and its effect on Hong Kong and our trade, we could have made progress.
In the absence of a policy this situation can continue to drift, having its effect on many other industries besides the cotton textile industry. I would say to the Government and the cotton trade that if there had been the slightest imagination or the mere semblence of a policy, to go on, I believe that the hon. Member for Preston, South and I could have settled this problem while we were in Hong Kong.
All this is only part of the adjustment taking place in trade generally throughout the world. We know of the determination of poorer countries to raise their standards of living and agree. In the debate on the Commonwealth Economic Conference, following his return from Montreal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a dynamic partnership was necessary. In concluding the economic debate, during our debate on the Address, the President of the Board of Trade referred to the need for an heroic effort.
Can the Government say what the scale of this heroic effort will be? What impact will it have on United Kingdom industry? Is there a timetable for the


adjustment which is bound to take place after competition has increased during the next six months, twelve months, or two years in many of our traditional industries? What is the Government's longterm policy to cope with this matter? These are very important questions, probably the most important questions to which the country needs to direct its attention at present.
I do not expect the Minister of State to answer my questions; they are more fundamental than that. But if we have focussed attention on a problem which must occupy the minds of the people of this country and throughout the Commonwealth we shall have done something. If we can show the way that our minds are working, having examined the problem on the spot, and the type of attitude that we propose to take up in the future and spare no effort to working out a plan to cope with it, then this Adjournment debate might well do some good.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Alan Green: I am glad to have the opportunity of trying to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). He and I spent a few weeks in the Far East recently. We also share a direct stake in British industry. We both represent Lancashire constituencies, and neither of us has a very impressive majority. At a time like this, the Floor of the House appears less of a chasm to me than a river on which we might launch a common warning and a common thought. Obviously, two people who are still separated by the Floor of the House are bound to look at matters, even when they have seen them from the same vantage point, a little differently one from the other.
I want to reinforce the hon. Member's warning about the scale on which China is emerging from chaos. It is easy to be a bore on a matter that is fresh to oneself but perhaps well understood and, therefore, a little stale to other people, but I am certain that this country and the West as a whole do not understand properly what is going on in the Far East today, particularly inside China.
The only point that I want to make is this. One thing that China and Hong Kong have in common is that their main

raw material for economic activity and industrial success is not things; it is people. I have a certain sympathy for the Chinese Government and a certain understanding and appreciation of the difficulties in which it finds itself in the great task that it has of rescuing China from fifty years of chaos. I have far more sympathy for the Chinese people whom that same Government is herding and dragooning on a scale that has never happened before in history, including the time of the Pharoahs.
That raw material of people in China is not being used so much as exploited. The results of the exploitation are to be seen in the most pitifully low prices which the Chinese get for many goods which they sell overseas. Hong Kong, in Lancashire's eyes, exploits labour, but the exploitation is mitigated both by a number of good employees, whether Chinese or English, and by a Government who, I think, are doing their best to mitigate exploitation. There are no such mitigations operating in China. Exploitation of human beings in China is on a vast and, I think, hitherto unknown scale.
If one considers the cheap prices at which Hong Kong can make textiles and then realise that with the same type of labour in the same sort of circumstances the Chinese are offering those same textiles at a third of the low price which Hong Kong charges, one is forced to consider that exploitation of labour inside China is the only way in which those prices can be charged in export markets from China. This is an important point. Six hundred million Chinese driven by a ruthless dictatorship, which exploits first its own people, will get in a position to exploit other peoples outside its borders if that form of economic attack destroys the economies of those to whom China is exporting.
It is important that all countries which are likely to receive Chinese goods should be careful to ensure that the receipt of those goods does not destroy their own internal stability and internal economy. I understand that in a free world, the Western part of the world, it is difficult, indeed impossible, to order all countries of the world to join the same sort of general staff to form that economic counter-attack to Communism which one would wish to see. One has to bear in mind the susceptibilities of new emergent nations, the feeling that they can manage


their own affairs perfectly well without us telling them how to do it, the feeling that they do not want to be warned against what may happen to them if they go on trading with China on their present lines.
I should, however, like to be satisfied that strenuous, intelligent, consistent efforts are being made by a country such as ours to warn the world about what is happening in China. Then the rest of the world must make up its mind whether it heeds the warning and acts on it; but we must give the warning.
I should like to give one small illustration of what I mean. A common article, white bathroom tiles, exported from China to Hong Kong, is priced in Hong Kong by the Chinese at 15½ Hong Kong cents. a unit. The local Hong Kong product is priced at 27 cents. a unit. Surely that shows that there is exploitation of Chinese labour in China. The Japanese product shipped to Hong Kong is 16 Hong Kong cents., the Chinese being careful to charge a price which undercuts Japanese competition. These tiles are offered in Germany at 10 cents. and in Canada at 7 cents. Surely these different pricings of the same article should be widely known, because the article is clearly being dumped in one of those countries, possibly in all of them, to the immediate detriment of normal, acceptable trade patterns.
We have to stir ourselves and our friends to meet these attacks. Against dumping and against organised exploitation of Chinese labour, we must have ready a defence if we are not to be swamped by Chinese competition.

1.48 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) on their very thoughtful and interesting speeches. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has raised a subject which is of immense interest and concern not only to my Department, for whom I am replying, but to many other Departments and to many nations.
I am grateful to the hon. Member and my hon. Friend for their courtesy in discussing with me privately last week their impressions of their recent visit to Hong

Kong, Ceylon and Japan. They have given me much food for thought, and, if it does not sound too patronising, I should like to say how much they have stressed the value of journeys abroad by Members of the House. The news and views which they bring back supplement so usefully and helpfully the rather arid documents which one sometimes receives through official channels.
The hon. Member will not expect me to answer all his points in the time available. But I can assure him that since I saw him last week I have been giving a lot of thought to this. All the points that he has raised will be examined and a great many of them will require very careful consideration.
Today, I will concentrate mainly on Chinese competition in Far Eastern countries. In recent months we have had many reports of increasing Chinese competition in manufactures and in consumer goods, particularly in markets in South-East Asia. I have been looking into the statistics. Leaving out the present year, the statistics which are available show that there has been no major expansion of total exports from China to South-East Asia since 1956. I would emphasise that it is difficult to get detailed figures, and that the figures we have are not necessarily final or accurate.
The imports of South-East Asian countries from China were £122 million in 1956 and £121 million in 1957. They appear to be running at about the same level this year. Imports into Hong Kong account for more than half of those total figures. Within those totals, or in the current year, there may possibly be a switch from the traditional lines of Chinese exports which are mainly foodstuffs, to manufactured goods. On the other hand, judging from the reports from China, they may have a considerable surplus of rice for export in this coming year, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The most significant development, as has been rightly pointed out, is the increasing ability of Communist China to export manufactured consumer goods at low prices. The main example of this so far has been cotton textiles, and this naturally attracts attention because the trade of some other South-East Asian producers in cotton textiles is considerable. Japan, Hong Kong, India and Pakistan are all concerned. The reports


available to us suggest that the total volume of exports of Chinese manufactures to South-East Asia is so far fairly limited. It is true, none the less, that such manufactures are being offered at remarkably low—one might even say sensationally low—prices, undercutting Japanese goods by a substantial margin.
As a result of the severe import restrictions which are in force in some South-East Asian countries, the Chinese exports of these manufactured goods have been concentrated in a few markets, notably Hong Kong, Indonesia and Malaya, and probably Japan has been the main sufferer so far. It is not easy to assess the motives behind these Chinese exports. Those motives are not necessarily sinister. We should recognise, indeed, we should welcome the fact, that the increasing industrialisation of China must be leading to larger import requirements. China may well need to export more to pay for her increased imports, and if we look at the figures for our own trade with China we see that there is a substantial opportunity there for our own industries. We should not neglect that side of it.
While our imports from China have gone up from £12·3 million in 1955 to £15·2 million in the first nine months of this year, our exports and re-exports have gone up from £7·9 million in 1955 to £18·9 million in the first nine months of this year. The exports in these first nine months are 80 per cent. higher than last year. It is an interesting reflection that the bulk of that increase took place in the months before we relaxed strategic controls.
I do not want in any way to minimise the significance of the new developments in Chinese trade. We are all well aware that China has a vast production potential and will one day, probably sooner than later, become a very large-scale trading country. I am aware, also, that the centralised economy of the country enables her to direct goods to export at the expense of the home consumers and she can fix whatever price level is necessary to sell in a particular market. On the other hand, those who trade with her may find from experience that this form of trading has disadvantages. We should not underestimate the benefits and the efficiency of the well-proven trading systems of the free world.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the system which has been described is likely increasingly to confront our exporters in many markets, with regard to other countries in the Sino-Soviet bloc as well as China. These offers of trade by the bloc countries are frequently commercially attractive, especially so where developing countries are in need of new outlets for their own produce or where they have received offers of assistance to promote their development plans. It is out of the question for the United Kingdom Government to try to safeguard the interests of Western exporters by always indiscriminately outbidding the bloc countries with offers on more favourable terms. This is so whether talking of aid or trade.
We must also remember that we cannot expect China to be excluded from world markets. Much of the trade that is done with China is, no doubt, very welcome to the recipients, and although it is not in certain circumstances popular to say so, we have to remember that low-cost consumer goods constitute one way of raising the standard of living of the poorer nations. It is not realistic to expect other nations to cut themselves off from advantageous trade with China, although, of course, we consider—and we would stress and warn them—that they would be wise to avoid over-dependence on the Sino-Soviet bloc and, above all, to avoid tying up their trade with rigid bilateral agreements. In the long run, the only real safeguard for our prosperity lies in the expansion of world trade to enable the exports of all countries to share in the expansion.
This brings me to the hon. Member's remarks about the heroic effort that was needed. In fact, I think that phrase was originally used by Vice-President Nixon and was quoted by my right hon. Friend. It seems to us that there are two ways of helping the poorer countries—to grant them aid and to trade with them. On the whole, though, I think that trade is better than aid. As to trade, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we ourselves practise the doctrine that was put forward in the Montreal Conference communiqué that obstacles should not be placed in the way of the export of manufactured goods from the underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth. That was a heroic effort and display of heroic statesmanship.
On the question of aid, I will not go into all the details. We know what was announced at Montreal about our readiness to make Commonwealth assistance available. We are not the only country in the Commonwealth that is going to help. Canada is raising her contributions. We know the assistance that has come through the Colombo Plan, and the help that the West has given to the Colombo Plan countries was warmly acknowledged at the council meeting in Seattle last month.
It may be presumptuous to say that the Western world as a whole is yet in a position to meet this new challenge fully, or even that we ourselves are yet doing so. On the other hand, it is a fact that the other side advertise their wares and their deeds very loudly without doing as much for the underdeveloped countries as we do; but we should never belittle what we are, in fact, doing. I believe that we have made a good start and that we are setting an example of what can be done under a free economic system.
On the question of intelligence, which my hon. Friend raised, I can assure him that we are in touch with all Commonwealth countries on matters affecting our trade, including, of course, the emergence of Communist China as a trade competitor in manufactures and consumer goods. We shall study what he said and consider whether there is more we ought to be doing and could do by way of collecting information about Communist-Chinese trade and of using the information when we have it.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member very warmly on raising this problem even for this short half-hour debate. There are, however, far too many facets of it to be covered, even in the course of a full day's debate. The hon. Member is quite right, in my view. The real problem, of this decade, and, perhaps, even of this century, is that of finding how to reconcile and build up an economic relationship between the Communist world and the free world. I think that he has made a great contribution by raising the matter today.

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

2.1 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: In initiating a debate on this very important matter of the future of the aircraft industry, I think it will be probably apparent to the House in the course of my remarks that I have no expert knowledge on the subject. I have, however, over the last few years, largely because of the great interest of my constituents in this matter, endeavoured to familiarise myself with the widest possible knowledge of expert opinion. In trying to assess that opinion, which in the nature of things is very conflicting, I think that perhaps the freedom of bias which I have and which is almost inseparable from expert opinion may not altogether be the disadvantage that it may first appear to be.
I think that there are certain broad matters on which there is a reasonable degree of agreement in the aircraft industry, and, indeed, among all those who take an interest in it and in airline operation. First, I do not think any of us would deny for a moment the enormous value of this industry both to our defence and our economy.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House by reiterating figures with which hon. Members are already familiar. I will content myself by reminding the House that in the current year the export value of aircraft, equipment and spares looks like reaching a record well in excess of £150 million. That is a very considerable achievement, and it is certainly not one which we can afford to imperil, any more than we can afford to ignore the welfare of hundreds of thousands of men and women who depend on this industry, either directly or indirectly, for their livelihood.
Secondly, I think we all recognise that, confronted with the very fierce competition of American aircraft producers, our industry inevitably has a very considerable handicap in the smallness of the home market provided in this country. It is a market which, at best, can absorb only a fraction of the numbers of any particular type of aircraft that it is essential to sell if the line of production is to be economic or competitive.
Thirdly, we are also aware of the immense sums involved in the development and production of a modern civil aircraft, and also of the very long delay between the decision being taken to go ahead with a certain aircraft from the drawing board stage and the time when it can possibly be in production. That means that there can be no quick return arid, indeed, no certainty that the market potential when the aircraft is eventually produced has not substantially altered from that envisaged at the time when the decision to go ahead was taken.
In the past the cost and risk have to a very large extent been underwritten by Government subvention in the form of orders for military aircraft. The rapid reduction in this form of subvention is bound to present the industry with very great difficulties. Whatever the possibilities of reorganisation and so on may be in the future, that short-term difficulty will remain. Not many of us would quarrel with the general proposition that the development of the long-range ballistic missiles must affect very seriously the demand for aircraft, though there is hound to be a good deal of controversy with regard to the timing as to when we should cease making a further generation of manned military aircraft.
On the general proposition, I think that most people would be in agreement. Equally, I think it is quite impossible to see, with the sudden cutting away of military subvention, how the aircraft industry can possibly survive such a drastic change without very considerable Government assistance.
When considering some of the aspects of this small home market, it consists, as we all know, of Transport Command of the Royal Air Force, for which the Government are directly responsible. Secondly, there are two nationalised Airways Corporations providing a somewhat different market—B.O.A.C. on the whole, for long-range aircraft, and B.E.A. for medium-range aircraft. Again this is a market over which the Government have a very considerable degree of control; at any rate they always have the right to have the last word. Thirdly, there is the much smaller market provided by independent airline operators, who again are dependent for their future on Government policy.
I think that in this connection the House, and no doubt the aircraft industry, faces a considerable dilemma because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is responsible for both the nationalised airlines and independent airline policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is responsible for laying down the strategic considerations which condition the requirement of Transport Command and of military aircraft. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty are responsible for the specifications of military and naval aircraft. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is responsible for the placing of orders, the issuing of requirements and the allocation of funds in support of research. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for export credits, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for finding the money.
It seems to me that it is virtually impossible in this House to have a comprehensive debate on the aircraft industry while we have responsibility spread around so many Departments. I hope that the Government would give serious consideration to the possibility of a Ministerlal committee or some organisation of that kind under the chairmanship of a single Minister, who would be responsible to this House and, indeed, to the aircraft industry itself for these matters.
To return to the problem of the home market, a further difficulty arises from the fact that the type of aircraft suitable for one of these markets, either Transport Command, B.E.A. or B.O.A.C., is not necessarily suitable for either of the other two. I think that makes it absolutely essential that any requirements issued by the Ministry of Supply for any civil aircraft should bear in mind very much its export potentialities, otherwise we shall have a small order which cannot possibly develop into an economic line of production.
We all remember in this House the controversy which raged over the new aircraft for B.E.A., which was eventually alloted the D.H.121. I have no doubt that that aircraft was considered by the best possible experts in the country to be eminently suited to B.E.A., but it seems to be forgotten that there is no airline


in any country in the world which has an exactly similar route pattern to B.E.A. I would have thought that it would have been much more sensible to design an aircraft primary for other European airlines and American airlines with similar types of route to those used by B.E.A. rather than tailor-make the aircraft especially to B.E.A. and thereby diminish its export potential.
The same applies, I think, to an even greater extent to Transport Command. It has long been obvious to people who take an interest in defence planning that the Beverley freighter is hopelessly out of date and that the new generation of freighter will have to have a very much longer range and a very much higher speed. It may indeed be necessary to have two freighters, a tactical freighter of limited range capable of carrying relatively light equipment, and a strategic freighter capable of much longer range capable of carrying anything up to a tank. If that is so, the number of orders for each aircraft will be even more limited than if there were only one aircraft capable of fulfilling both functions.
It does, therefore, seem essential that this type, when it is designed, should be designed with an eye to the export market for civil operation in Europe or America, otherwise the costs of production will be quite exorbitant and will be entirely wasted from the point of view of setting up an economical production line from which aircraft can go to export. I know full well that the Minister of Supply cannot possibly give any indications of the requirements of these aircraft until the military authorities have made up their minds as to what type of aircraft they require, but I think that the Government, who, after all, control the military experts, are under an obligation to make an early decision in the present state of the aircraft industry so that that industry has a reasonable chance of planning production.
We have in the last few months, in the Press and elsewhere, been almost inundated with rumours that the matter is so urgent that there is now no suitable British aircraft available, and that it is contemplated that we may resort to purchasing American aircraft. If that is so, it seems to me that the fault lies entirely with those responsible for foreseeing the requirements of Transport Command. It does not seem to me that those require-

ments are very different today from what could have been foreseen five or six years ago, when it was already clear that many of our oveseas bases on which we had to rely were becoming dangerously insecure, which must have meant that we must look to a longer range and a bigger capacity aircraft. Had an order been given then, there would have been no question at all that a British aircraft suitably designed for the purpose could have been available today. I hope that my hon. Friend will be in a position to give us a categorical denial that there will be any purchase of American aircraft for Transport Command.
It has always seemed to me that Transport Command is something of an unwanted child to the Air Ministry. It is perfectly natural in Service Departments that air marshals, like generals or admirals, should look first to their first-line equipment. I think that as a result Transport Command does tend to get what is left over and no more. Yet the importance of Transport Command is probably even greater to the other Services, and certainly to the Army, than it is to the Air Ministry, which, in this respect, is really only the operator, and I hope that we shall see the Estimates for Transport Command taken out of the hands of the Air Ministry altogether and regarded in the House as a separate item to be considered under the Ministry of Defence Estimate.
Now to say one word about the independent airline operators without going into any of the controversies as to policy. It seems to me that one of their difficulties arises from the fact that much of their most profitable work is seasonal, but there are other airline companies in other parts of the world who also have these seasonal requirements, and those seasons do not coincide with the seasonal peaks in this country. It seems to me that there is scope for a holding company—I mean, a company holding aircraft— to hire out aircraft for relatively short times to those airline companies. It would be able to ensure full utilisation of existing aeroplanes. If Britain were first in the field with an idea of that sort it might well introduce British planes to other airlines in other parts of the world where hitherto they have been unknown. I hope that that suggestion can be considered with a view to increasing the home market, on which so much depends.
To look for a moment at the immediate future, apart from the freighter for Transport Command which I have already mentioned, we must remember that the current successful British airliners, the Comet, the Britannia and the Viscount, do stem originally from a good deal of work financed and supported by the Government, and it is difficult indeed to visualise how the next generation of aircraft can possibly be developed without some similar assistance.

ROYAL ASSENT

2.15 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1958.
2. Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act, 1958.
3. Development of Inventions Act, 1958.
4. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1958.
5. Adoption Act, 1958.
6. National Debt Act, 1958.
7. Manœuvres Act, 1958.
8. Slaughter of Animals Act, 1958.
9. Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1958.
10. Church of Scotland Trust Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
11. North of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
12. Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
13. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
14. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
15. Kent County Council Act, 1958.
16. Manchester Corporation Act, 1958.

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) resumes, I may say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), at my request, has withdrawn his half-hour Adjournment which was due to be taken later today. That means, therefore, that we shall have more time for this debate. If this debate were to finish about 3 o'clock it would be in ample time.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I was saying that it seemed difficult to visualise how the next generation of civil airliners could be produced without some kind of subvention on lines that have made possible, in the past, the production of the three successful current British models.
According to some persons of great experience, both of the aircraft industry and of airline operation that I have consulted, one of the most hopeful markets appears to be a replacement for the Viscount and Convair starting about 1963. No doubt some of these aircraft will be replaced by larger aircraft, such as the DH 121 and the Convair 600, but there seems likely to be a large demand for a smaller aircraft carrying about 70 passengers, with a range of between 1,400 and 2,400 miles and a speed of about 560 m.p.h. If that is so, and the estimates of a possible market of up to 600 aircraft are correct, it seems that no time should be lost in getting out designs for an aircraft of that type and getting it under way before we are faced with foreign competition.
I want to emphasise that I do not believe all the problems of the aircraft industry can be solved by Government action alone. For some years I have been a farmer. It is one of the stalest of music-hall jokes that farmers blame the Government for everything that goes wrong, including the weather. I am bound to say that I find a good deal of that "disease" spreading to the aircraft industry, because there is much that can be done by the aircraft firms themselves.
I am certain that my right hon. Friend's policy of encouraging amalgamation is sound. I cannot see how any smaller companies today can command the finance to play their part, even with Government assistance, in developing a modern aircraft. It means that before one generation of aircraft has been sold in sufficient numbers to recoup the enormous expenditure, which may be anything between £10 million and £20 million, they have to be working on the next generation. I would have thought that amalgamation should spread not only between aircraft firms, but between aircraft firms and firms engaged on the other activities.
A remarkable change has been accomplished by the Hawker Siddeley group in the last few years by which, whereas, only a few years ago, they were dependent on aircraft to the extent of over 60 per cent., today that has dropped to less than 40 per cent., and a similar diversification has been carried out by Blackburn Aircraft. I am glad to know that the Bristol Aeroplane Company, in my constituency, is now associated with Hawkers, and I hope that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend will bear in mind that those companies which are endeavouring to carry out Government policy should have considerable consideration given to them when it comes to the placing of orders. One of the few things that seems to be agreed among the aircraft companies is that they must have Government money and the maximum of independence in its use. I find at present that little hard thinking appears to be going on as to how these conflicting elements are to be reconciled, unless, indeed, it is proposed that Parliament should abrogate its main and probably most historic function of supervising supply.
It seems that there is a place for an organisation, perhaps to be called an aircraft development board, able to draw on all the best brains and experience in the industry, and the airline operators could get together and help my right hon. Friend in the very difficult problem of settling priorities, and also to establish some degree of co-operation amongst the companies themselves. Today, with these enormous concerns and the great amount of people depending upon them, stakes are far too high for cut-throat competition. I believe that there is much

the Government can do, but I also think that there is much the aircraft companies can do.
I end with a word on the subject of redundancy. No doubt some degree of redundancy is inevitable. I hope it will not be necessary to go back to quite such low figures as existed before Korea. That would seem to imply that we do not hope to maintain our proportion of the production of aircraft in the world in an age when the number of aircraft flying must be constantly increasing. No doubt some redundancy will be inevitable and I believe that it can be ameliorated only by diversifying the employment in the industry, preferably outside the industry itself, and by giving the maximum consideration to those who are threatened by the inevitable anxieties and dislocations that redundancy causes, and who, in my view, deserve well of the companies they have served.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who has just spoken about the decline of the aircraft industry, has reflected the anxieties felt on this side of the House on that subject, which have been expressed in a Motion put down by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and myself in conjunction with a number of other hon. Members, asking for a committee of inquiry to go into the question.

[That this House, viewing with grave concern the contraction of the aircraft industry and the consequent dispersal of skilled men and valuable design teams, and bearing in mind its importance in regard both to the nation's defence and economic interests, and noting the large sums of public money already expended in the industry, urges the Government to appoint an independent Committee of Inquiry to consider and make recommendations as to the future of the aircraft industry.]

I could not help feeling that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was somewhat complacent about the prospect of redundancy, and I was astonished that he did not even refer to the figures of actual and prospective redundancy in his own constituency, which I understand will be considerable.

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to HANSARD, he will find I


made a speech on that subject only the other day. I did not think it was proper to bore the House with a repetition in a half-hour's debate.

Mr. Edelman: I cannot help feeling that the House would not be bored by figures which are at the heart of the problem.

Mr. Corfield: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is much more important to try to find a cure, which can only lie in the future of the aircraft industry itself, than to repeat the figures?

Mr. Edelman: The fact is that it is impossible to understand the malaise of the aircraft industry today unless we pay due attention to the employment situation and unless we understand the origin of what is happening.
The origin of the transformation that has occurred inside the aircraft industry lies in the Defence White Paper, as a result of which Government orders are to be substantially cut back. I have already raised in this House at Question Time the matter of how many men will be made redundant in the industry, and apart from its national application I have a direct constituency concern in this matter because of the many thousands of men in my own constituency who are so employed.
I have been discussing this matter with leaders of the industry and have been assured on the highest authority that within the next two years, not five, if the present situation still obtains, if there is not to be a substantial increase in Government orders, the number of people who will be made redundant will be 100,000. That is a figure of the highest significance. Today the industry, including those employed in ancillary industries, employs an overall total of about 330,000, of whom about 250,000 are directly concerned with aircraft production.
If there is to be, as is intended, a switch-over to the production of ballistic missiles, we have to bear in mind that the labour force necessary to produce 60 ballistic missiles is equivalent to the labour force needed to produce one aircraft. In other words, for every squadron of aircraft it is possible with an equivalent labour force to produce between 600 and 700 missiles. Put another way, the

prospect of unemployment inside the aircraft industry is likely to be serious unless there is a substantial change in Government policy.
It is not really the dispersal of the general labour force which is important. What is of immediate and acute concern to those occupied with the destiny of the aircraft industry is the fact that design teams will also be dissipated. I was told only the day before yesterday that at one major British firm 17 people concerned with designs and draughtsmanship have taken employment in the United States of America. In other words, the great skill which we have inside the aircraft industry is likely to be dispersed, wasted and lost to our competitors unless prompt and dramatic action is taken.
This has a particular importance in the export trade, and the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South rightly stressed the great value of the aircraft industry to exports. The significant figure which I should like to offer the House in this connection is that for every pound of material that goes into an aircraft the value is of the order of £l6-£18 compared with an equivalent ratio of 5s.-10s. for every pound of material in a valuable exporting industry like the motor industry. In other words, it is of the greatest national importance that something should be done to see where the aircraft industry is going, what can be done in the present situation to revitalise it and, above all, to come to some conclusion as to what shape the industry can have for the future, not only to maintain employment at home, which is of the greatest importance, but also to serve the country in the export field.
In the matter of employment, although the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South spoke about the fact that before Korea the industry was relatively small, the fact is that when men were made redundant because of the switchover from war work to peacetime activities, it was possible in those days for men to take up alternative employment. Today, however, especially with the contraction in the parallel machine tool industry, it is no longer easy for an engineer who is sacked from an aircraft firm to move into an alternative form of engineering.
I conclude, not because the subject has been exhausted, but to give others the chance to speak before the debate closes. Before ending, however, I strongly support the argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member that we should now review the possibility of encouraging, with Government assistance, some kind of substitute to the Viscount, the Britannia and Comet. What I have in mind is an aircraft to operate over the European routes, over which B.E.A. functions, with the kind of specification described by the hon. and gallant Member and with a speed of about 560 m.p.h. and carrying about 70 passengers. There is, I believe, a valuable market available for that type of aircraft, not only at home but also abroad. By the time that 1963 comes, there is likely to be a great overseas demand for it.
In the meantime, to quote the words of one of its leaders, the industry is approaching a precipice. The man who used those words said that by 1961, unless there is direct and substantial Government intervention, the whole industry may be in danger of collapse. I hope that this debate is merely a preliminary to further debates, when we may discuss the subject more exhaustively and when the Motion which we have put down may be fully gone into. Then we may find it possible to take action to save this great industry.

2.44 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I recognise that time is short and I shall try to condense my remarks into a few minutes. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) over-simplified the whole issue. He did not make any concrete proposals for what he thought should be done. He referred to what happened before Korea. At that time, not because of the new policy on missiles, but for quite different reasons, there was a tremendous run-down of the aircraft industry and a change of mind on the part of the Labour Government. I do not blame them; it was a difficult problem. The problem existed in 1949 and only the Korean war lifted the industry out of its difficulties.
There have been far too many ups and downs in this industry for the last twenty years. They have been continuous. The men get despondent. They see their jobs disappearing because there is no con-

tinuous line of thought. That is due to various reasons, including changes of design. Nevertheless, the industry did not anticipate that the present run-down would be anything like as sudden as it has been.
There have been too many delays in making decisions. I know that Ministers must get the best design prepared and specification worked out before they place the orders, but nearly eighteen months to decide on the placing of the order for the 339 is far too long. We were told in the House this week about transport aircraft. I cannot believe that there will be tremendous improvements in transport aircraft in the next year or two. I should have thought that the Government should today get together all the Ministries concerned and decide what is to happen with Government orders for the next five years and tell the industry what it will get. Then it will know the worst. Of course, there will always be amendments.
The other thing which must be done is to decide upon priorities. We do not have the same resources as America, but we have a lot of brain power. Let us use it to the best possible advantage of the country. Let us concentrate on the things that we can sell well abroad. The first of these is engines. Our engine companies are second to none. In fact, they lead the world. Many American engines today are built on British designs. The Americans do not know it, but they are. It would be wise for the Government to spend money on research and development in engines, and large sums at that.
I turn next to freighters, to transport aircraft and to the Rotodyne. Nothing has been done about this aeroplane. Attempts are being made to sell it to America and we may well lose it. Here is something on which we should spend several million pounds, if necessary, to ensure that we are leading. I would like to be told more about the specification of the civil supersonic airliner. The Times mentions it today. It is extremely important that Britain must not find herself left behind in seven or eight years' time.
To mention the firm with which I was for many years connected, although I no longer am, I know that the Handley Page Herald is being considered. I am giving away no secrets in saying that this firm has spent £3 million of its own money.


It is not one of the biggest firms and it deserves some measure of Government support to overcome that first hurdle in selling it to one of the British Airways Corporations, or to the Air Force or the Navy, so that it can be sold abroad—countries want to order it—provided that it is developed in Britain.
There will be a glut of second-hand piston engined aircraft. A year or eighteen months hence, they will be practically given away. I do not think that B.O.A.C. has any possible hope of selling the D.C.7C for dollars, as we were told a few years ago. Nobody could foresee this, and the Corporation may well find these aircraft on its hands. I believe that 14 different airframe design teams is too many for this country. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the number will have to be reduced, but we should concentrate and get the best out of the firms that remain, probably seven or eight at the very most.
The aircraft industry cannot be valued in terms of money. Exports this year will amount to about £150 million. I was bold enough to mention that figure speaking in the House ten years ago. I said that aircraft exports would reach the size of textile exports. However, in two or three years that figure may be down to £30 million or £40 million unless something is done in the immediate future.
The aircraft industry passes on to general engineering a technology which would not otherwise be available. I admire my hon. Friend for the way he tackles these problems and I beg him to impress on his right hon. Friend the need to consider the aviation problem as a whole and to try to get some sense into the situation.

2.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I have no desire to bring this short debate to a premature conclusion, for I observe that some hon. Members still want to take part. However, time is limited, and I hope that the House will now allow me to reply to some of the points which have been raised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) on his contribution to the debate. The problem is big and, as the hon.

Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said, may need a great deal more time in discussion before favourable and constructive conclusions can be reached.
I sympathise with the concern of those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the changing circumstances in the industry, and I also appreciate the genuine concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government should give all proper assistance in this very difficult period for this great industry. It has made, and it will continue to make, a notable contribution to the technical and economic progress of the country. I shall devote the first pant of my speech to the general circumstances of the aircraft industry and to Government policy. After that, I hope to deal with some of the detailed points which have been made and to give such information as I can about individual projects which are of particular interest.
My right hon. Friend outlined the Government's policy in a debate on 22nd May. Nothing has happened since that date to alter the premises upon which that policy was based. The policy itself therefore remains unchanged. Many of the problems which have been mentioned this afternoon are the outcome of circumstances which were clearly foreseen and described by my right hon. Friend seven months ago and, on occasions, even earlier than that.
I want to refer to contraction to show hon. Members what is involved. We start from the unpalatable but inevitable fact that the aircraft industry's size must contract substantially over the next few years. Last May, my right hon. Friend forecast that employment in the aircraft industry over the next five years was likely to decline from 250,000 to about 150,000, which is the pre-Korean level. Those figures were mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry, North. The forecast took account of prospective civil and military orders which could be foreseen at that time, and nothing has happened since to give us reason to amend it.
I must emphasise, however, that this does not mean that all those people will necessarily have to leave their firms and, much less, that they will be out of employment. That must depend in part on the extent to which aircraft firms diversify their activities and switch their


efforts to work other than aircraft construction. My right hon. Friend and I have taken every opportunity to encourage firms to do that, and considerable progress has been made during the past year.
Although some difficulties may arise in certain localities, the decline in the aircraft industry's labour should, in general, be gradual. Past estimates of redundancy have almost always proved over-pessimistic. There is a notable case in the example of Saunders-Roe in the Isle of Wight where the result of the cancellations of the P.177 was not nearly so frightful as all of us had felt that it would be at one time.
We are in close and constant touch with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour about the problems of the aircraft industry and, in conjunction with those Ministers, we shall continue to do everything we can to help to solve local difficulties as they arise.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he has done anything to encourage the firms who are forced to contract to deal with trade unions on a proper basis in order to minimise the dislocation in the transfers and contractions? That is a major problem in Bristol,

Mr. Taylor: If I said that I was never doing anything else, I should not be overstating the case. I am very conscious of the need to keep in close touch with the trade unions on all these matters and to encourage employers to give the fullest possible information to their workpeople about how things are going. We do everything we possibly can to encourage that process.
It was thus against a background of inevitable contraction that a year ago the Government considered the future of the British aircraft industry and, in particular, the future extent of Government support for it. It was concluded that there would be a need for the foreseeable future of an efficient and economic industry to meet the Services' requirements for aircraft and guided weapons. Although the White Paper of 1957 deleted from the research and development programme two projects, namely, the supersonic strategic bomber and the supersonic

fighter, there are other rôles which can be carried out only by manned aircraft. My right hon. Friend announced that the Government would continue as necessary to sponsor and finance aeronautical research and development to meet defence requirements.
Furthermore, the Government intend to make a continuing contribution to civil aeronautical research and development in the ways described by my right hon. Friend on 22nd May. In reaching that decision, the Government had in mind that the aircraft industry makes an essential contribution to the economic well-being of the country. Aircraft construction is one of the most highly skilled branches of engineering and is an eminently suitable activity for a comparatively small but highly industrialised country, such as ours, with a highly skilled labour force and a wealth of technological experience.
Sales of aircraft and aero engines in the past five years or so have been of immense benefit to the balance of payments and to the general economic condition of the country. It is therefore essential that all of us should make the maximum effort to see that the industry is maintained in as highly efficient and active state as possible.
Technical progress in aircraft over the past twenty years has been remarkable and has had its repercussions throughout the whole of the engineering industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South referred to the need for concentration in stronger units. It is clear that it would be both wasteful and impracticable for the industry to maintain the present deployment of its resources over so many separate units.
Moreover, the Government expect that in the coming years the industry will bear a progressively larger share of expenditure on research and development in civil aircraft. The modern aircraft is very expensive both to develop and to produce, and some measure of concentration is essential so that the stronger units emerging will be better able to bear the heavy risks involved. My right hon. Friend has therefore declared to the industry that contracts will be placed not with the mere winner of a design competition but with greater regard to a firm or a group of firms who have the technical and financial strength to carry out


development and production at the optimum rate, and to ensure that a project does not suffer setbacks unduly if something goes wrong. We welcome, therefore, such associations as that to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Reference has been made in this debate, in the debate yesterday and in an earlier debate today, to the strategic freighter. My hon. Friend referred in particular to this project, and inquired how it was getting on. There is not much that I can add at this moment to what has already been said. Many Questions have been placed upon the Order Paper, and many answers have been given, many of which have not been very illuminating. However, there are two requirements, one for a short-range tactical freighter and the other for a long- range strategic freighter, which are being considered at this moment with great urgency. In the study that is going on the relationship between military and civil freighting requirements, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, is being kept well in mind, and I have every confidence that a decision will not be long delayed.
I had intended to make reference to the position of Northern Ireland, which was mentioned in an earlier debate today, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department indicated in that debate that I might be able to give some information this afternoon. But the time has advanced rapidly and all that I would say is that the position of Short and Harlands is constantly in our minds. We are well aware of this firm's position, and we shall take into account its resources, its mounting difficulties and the excellence of its products when we are in a position to make a decision about orders. Beyond that I do not think that I can go today.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman steal a little moment from his time to make some reference to the position of the industry in Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: I had not intended to make any reference to Scotland, but the hon. Member may like to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself have, during the last few days, been extremely actively engaged in matters affecting Scottish Aviation. I think that I can claim quite

justly that our efforts have not been completely unsuccessful. We have been able to make some contribution, at any rate in the short-term, to solving that firm's difficulties. I see that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) is itching to rise to his feet. I hope that he will not press me to tell him what we have done in this matter. Perhaps he would like to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Sir Thomas Moore: In hope and confidence that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend will carry out their promises, I should like to thank him in advance on behalf of Scottish Aviation.

Mr. Taylor: I have always admired the assiduity with which my hon. Friend pursues these matters as they affect his constituency and Scotland in general, hut I hope that the way in which he has posed his question does not mean that he regards the answer as a foregone conclusion.

Mr. Rankin: It is hopeful.

Mr. Taylor: It certainly is hopeful.
I was also asked by my hon. Friend about a committee for the aircraft industry. There are many subjects over the whole field of Government administration where responsibility is shared between a number of Ministers. But I do not think that a proliferation of committees is necessarily the best way of ensuring co-ordination. My hon. Friend referred to the number of Ministers who are now dealing with or are involved in these matters, and I cannot help but think that the introduction of a further committee might well complicate and delay the matter still further. My right hon. Friend has overall responsibility for the welfare of the aircraft industry, and the task of securing proper coordination between his own and other Departments concerned is placed squarely upon his shoulders. I can assure my hon. Friend that the present machinery works well, and is reviewed and adapted from time to time in the light of changing circumstances.
I now turn to the question of the supersonic airliner which has been mentioned today. My right hon. Friend and I share the anxiety which has been expressed about the need to begin to develop a supersonic civil aircraft as soon as possible, but I must remind hon.


Members that this aircraft is planned to have a performance far in advance of that of any civil aircraft at present under development, either in this country or elsewhere in the world, and the technical problems which it will present will be correspondingly great. For those reasons it is essential for us to take due time to consider what is the best standard of performance to aim for before launching into the development of this project.
I can assure hon. Members that the committee of aircraft firms and officials which is engaged on the preliminary study is working with a real sense of urgency, and the research programme which they are undertaking is yielding very useful results.

Mr. Frank Beswick: Can the Minister say whether it is quite impossible for this supersonic airliner to have a vertical take-off capability?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member's question indicates the kind of problem with which the committee is faced. In many ways these matters probe into entirely unknown fields, and it is for the committee to consider whether it should devote its efforts in the direction in which the hon. Member has indicated or go for the conventional forward-flying aircraft. I cannot anticipate what the experts will say.
I feel that my time is more than exhausted, so I shall conclude by saying that most of the points made in the debate have been directed to the short-term problems of the aircraft industry. This is inevitable, since there can be no doubt that in the immediate future the industry faces a difficult transitional period. Nevertheless, in dealing with an industry whose products can take up to ten years to develop we must take the long view.
In the long-term, the best hope of success lies in the civil field. I am convinced that the market for both passenger and freighter transport aircraft will expand steadily and rapidly in order to meet the ever-increasing demand for air transport. In the coming years—which I should describe as years of challenging opportunity—I am convinced that the aircraft industry will meet the challenge because it is sufficiently farsighted and adaptable to make the most of its opportunities.

HOSPITAL FACILITIES, BIRMINGHAM

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the question of the urgent need for additional hospital services in the City of Birmingham. I am sorry that I have not been able to report more progress in this matter, because the Parliamentary Secretary knows quite well that in the last five years I have consistently raised this question. The fact that there are many thousands of people in and adjoining the City of Birmingham who are suffering unnecessary pain while awaiting operations and facing considerable inconvenience and dangers is, I feel, some reflection upon the Government and the Minister of Health.
I want to raise three aspects of the matter. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) is anxious to say a few words in this debate, but in so far as the Minister can give us hope of relieving the pressure in the three sections to which I propose to refer it will, I am sure, be of assistance not only to West Bromwich but to other adjoining areas.
I have raised the question about patients in the City of Birmingham many times in the past. I have asked Question after Question about the Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham. I know quite a lot about this hospital because I live very close to it and, unfortunately, I have had continuously to accompany a relative over the past twenty years to its out-patients' department. Therefore, I do not need any evidence beyond my own personal experience.
Selly Oak Hospital was built under the old Poor Law system. It was never intended for the treatment of casualties or outpatients. Therefore, it never had an outpatients' department. The present outpatients' department of the hospital consists of two old wards one above the other. The fact that during the first nine months of this year 63,568 attendances were made to the out-patients' department and that 30,368 people attended the casualty department will give the House some idea of the enormous strain being imposed upon a hospital that was not originally equipped with an out-patients'


department or a casualty department. Any relief that can be given to Selly Oak Hospital will bring a compensating relief to other hospitals.
The Birmingham General Hospital is dealing with more than 2,000 casualty cases a week. The accidents hospital is dealing with casualties from all over the Midlands, and here we have a hospital which was never built for its present purpose urgently in need of an out-patients' department. Nearly 100,000 people attended either as out-patients or casualties in the course of nine months. One lady recently wrote to me saying that she had attended the hospital as an outpatient for many years. She said:
I wear a caliper and I have had one or two minor falls climbing those steps. I marvel that some of the dear old souls of 70 etc. do not have many a serious fall.
This proves the need for an adequate outpatients' department.
I do not wish to enter into recrimination. The Minister knows perfectly well that there has been delay. There should be no further delay because my information is that the hospital management committee and the regional hospital board have given all that they have been asked to give. They have given information and have submitted to all the requests from the Ministry. It now only remains for the Minister to say that the project is now approved and that there is no further administrative obstacle to the provision of this urgent need.
The second hospital to which I wish to refer is the Little Bromwich Hospital, Birmingham. The hospital was originally an infectious diseases hospital, with only a very small operating theatre. It was never intended to be used as a general hospital, but as the infectious diseases have declined it has really taken on the rôle of a general hospital. It is quite incapable of catering for all the cases which need operations.
The Minister gave some figures and he knows that the number of operations performed at the hospital in 1953 was 469. During the eleven months of this year that number rose to 1,098, which means that the doctors and nurses working in this small operating theatre are working in difficult conditions and are faced with a waiting list of some 100 patients. I have seen the operating theatre

and the inconvenience and difficulty under which the staff has to work. The greatest tragedy of all is that the hospital cannot deal with surgical emergencies or casualties. It cannot possibly relieve the tremendous strain being placed on other hospitals.
There are many cases of hernia, of people in considerable pain and of working men waiting to be restored to good health and who cannot be attended to because the hospital just cannot perform any more operations than it is performing at the present time.
The Minister has said that plans to deal with the situation were seen in January of this year. I think that there has been an almost unforgivable delay. Even if the regional hospital board is guilty of delay due to difficulties which I know, of course, that it has experienced, that does not excuse either the Minister or the Ministry for allowing the delay to continue.
Every time that I raise the matter with the Minister he tells me, "We are pressing on with this as fast as we possibly can." All we want the Minister to do is to approve an additional operating theatre. The management committee and the regional hospital board are agreed on the subject, and surely the Minister himself ought now to agree.
The third hospital I wish to mention is the Birmingham Dental Hospital. The Minister knows that some twelve months ago I raised the question of this hospital on the Adjournment. I hardly think that I need explain to the Minister or to the House the need for a new dental hospital. I would refer the Minister to a letter in the Manchester Guardian of yesterday and ask him to examine carefully what it says. It is a long letter from a Mr. Frederick Ballard, who, evidently, has considerable knowledge of the dental service. His letter refers to the care of children's teeth, and the first paragraph of it states:
Unless more serious and realistic thought is given to the provision of preventive dental services, we are likely to run into the most absurd and costly failure ever experienced in this field. The facts are patent and grim. Most distressing and critical is the increasing incidence of dental caries in young mothers and pre-school children. School entrants have more decayed and missing deciduous teeth today than ever before. While statistical accuracy is wellnigh unobtainable, it has been


stated officially that the reparative needs of the whole child population of Great Britain is met only to about one-third.
That is true, and it is true of Birmingham.
A year ago the Minister told me that he would come to Birmingham and would accept my offer to escort him, but he has not yet come. I extend the invitation to him again even now, before he tells me this afternoon that the Ministry are to approve of a new dental hospital being started immediately. I think that he will see, if he goes to look at this hospital, a most disgraceful and disgusting state of affairs that one could find in any hospital anywhere.
I should like to say that the dentists at this hospital, and the doctors and nurses of the two other hospitals that I have mentioned, are among some of the finest in the whole service. I pay great tribute to their patience and endurance, because, as the Minister knows no addition can be made to this hospital or any improvements at all. It is quite beyond improving, and, in any case, owing to a street widening scheme, it will have to go.
Today, I am informed that on 1st December, the number of people on the waiting list for treatment at this hospital was 1,449, and, in 1957, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to The debate today, told me that he and his right hon. Friend would ever be mindful—
not to let this most important matter take anything like a back seat in our calculations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1400.]
A back seat, indeed. I come to him one whole year later, because, a week ago, he could not tell me that the Ministry is willing to approve the final plans for this hospital.
My information is—and I can assure the Minister that it is on good authority—that during this year, after I raised this matter, there have been many meetings between his Ministry, the regional hospital board and the University Grants Committee, and that on 2nd June, 1958, what was thought to be a final meeting took place, at which it was understood that all was approved, and that all they had to do was to wait for Treasury sanction. On 19th September, the regional hospital board received a letter which contained these words:
We"—
that is, the Ministry of Health—

and the University Grants Committee are prepared to accept your answers on the points left outstanding.
What impression could we get except that all was now approved? On 19th September, they asked for the sketch plans, which were sent on 11th October.
My anxiety and that of the regional hospital board and of all the dentists in the city, is that this new dental school will take two and a half years to build, unless the Minister and the Treasury give their sanction very quickly, within the next week or so. In fact, it wilt delay the building of that hospital by one year. I am told that the University Grants Committee and all concerned are agreed that the intake of students to this hospital will be 80, instead of 40 as at present. These dental students are needed, because dentists are needed, not only in Birmingham but all over the country, and this is a contribution to the whole country which we are asking to be allowed to make.
There are far more students who apply than can possibly be accommodated. At present, 40 are taken, and the authorities want to take 80. They want them to be allowed to do their first year at the medical school to study physiology, and anatomy so that they can go the following year into the dental school. All that we are asking is that the Minister and the Treasury shall give their sanction and enable them to do so immediately.
That is my case this afternoon, on these three important and vital aspects affecting the health of the men, women and children in the City of Birmingham. I say to the Minister that I would be delighted if he would tell me this afternoon that he would go to look at these three aspects of the situation in Birmingham. I should be glad if he would go with me, and I ask him again, because I am convinced that he need spend only 15 minutes at the dental hospital and 15 minutes at the other two hospitals to see all that is necessary to convince him of this vital and urgent need for the City of Birmingham.
I ask him, whatever he says to me, to give me an assurance this afternoon, and certainly before Christmas, that will give to all the doctors, nurses and other people at this hospital who are trying to battle against almost insuperable difficulties,


hope for the future. I ask him that he should not expect me to apply for yet another Adjournment debate—after all, I have had two. Let me have something definite. I do not mind how the hon. Gentleman knocks me about. He can be rough with me, though he is a very courteous man, and always gives me a most courteous answer, but I do not mind, even if he is rough, if he will give me the answer "Yes," which will give some hope to Birmingham. I therefore appeal to him to do his best to assist Birmingham to overcome these difficult problems.

3.26 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has made an overwhelming case for the Minister trying to do something, not only for Birmingham, but, as he has said, for the adjoining areas, because the situation in Birmingham is reflected in many other areas. The West Bromwich Hospital District, about which I want to speak, includes not only West Bromwich itself, but Oldbury—and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) is here—Wednesbury, Smethwick, Tipton and part of Handsworth, which is a very large area.
I will make my remarks practically in telegraphic form, because I do not want to take a very long time. I want to deal first with cases of tonsils and adenoids. There are 670 children waiting for operation in this area, and some of them have waited for as long as ten years. That seems to be a very serious matter. I know that a great deal more is now being done as a result of very strong pressure by the regional hospital board, and I myself have put a Question on the matter recently. I understand that the Board is now to be able to do something to overcome this terrible long waiting list.
Next, I turn to the chronic sick. According to the circular H.M.86 of 1957, the Ministry says that there should be 1·2 beds per thousand of the population. On that basis, there should be 270 beds for West Bromwich, but there are in this district, not 270, but only 75 beds. Even that very small number of beds has been achieved by "stealing" 24 beds from from post-operative cases, so that some people who have recovered from operations have to leave earlier than would

otherwise have been the case, because the beds have been taken, and quite rightly taken, for the chronic sick.
I want now to turn to the mental hospitals and refer to Birmingham itself. All Saints' Hospital takes people from the adjoining areas, and it is now unable to take all the people who want to go there. It is unable, in particular, to take women voluntary patients, and can take only very few men. The result, as I think the Minister will agree, is most unfortunate. Mental patients who cannot be taken in voluntarily, have to be signed in on a three-day order as compulsory patients, with all that that implies. They go into the hospital under an order and, at the end of three days, they may be kept on voluntarily if they are unsuitable to be discharged. I feel that to be a most serious state of affairs.
There is one other point to which I want to refer, and it is an individual case. I do so because it shows the appalling difficulty there is in finding accommodation. A certain Mr. Callaghan, of 24, Brindley Road, West Bromwich, an iron moulder, had very serious ear trouble, and went to see an ear specialist, originally, on 13th August. The ear specialist was a Mr. Dunn. He was told that operation was necessary and that he would get a bed within one week at the Birmingham Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital. At the end of the week there was no bed.
On 17th September, over a month later, when he was having very great difficulty in breathing, he saw a specialist privately. The specialist said that he could be admitted as a private patient after five days to the Birmingham Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital, but if he wanted to come as a public patient the specialist could do nothing about it at all, because there were just not enough beds for the public patients. Mr. Callaghan had therefore to go as a private patient since he was seriously ill and had been advised to go into hospital at once. He had to pay a sum of £36 in all. I cannot think that is a satisfactory state of affairs. It seems most unsatisfactory.
These are the points, which I have put as shortly as I could, to illustrate the very great difficulties there are in this area. Apparently the Minister has not fully realised them as yet. Pressure has induced him to take action in the case of


the long waiting-lists for tonsil operations, but not in other cases. I beg him to come down to Birmingham, and indeed to West Bromwich as well, to see for himself exactly what the situation is, and then to act and act quickly. I do not expect an answer from him this afternoon, as he may not have time to give it, but the best answer is action, and that is the answer we want.

3.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): In view of the lateness of the hour and the shortness of the time, I will eschew the customary courtesies and will endeavour to give both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the best reply I can in the briefest time.
Before I refer to the three schemes to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) devoted most of his speech, I would speak in general about the activities of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. We must not be too limited or parochial in our attitude; the board caters for a population of 4½ million people and is responsible for 220 hospitals. It is obvious that in its arrangements for hospital provision in Birmingham the board has to look at the whole picture, and although it may sometimes appear that particular local aspects are not getting the attention they deserve, the region has to be looked at as a whole. We need a sense of perspective here, and should realise that activity in one sector probably serves a need in another sector as well.
We ought not to underrate the achievements in Birmingham since the start of the National Health Service. Since 1948, £2½ million has been spent on various capital works at different hospitals, excluding mental hospitals, in Birmingham itself, and many sizeable schemes have been completed. I am not fully satisfied and am not in the least complacent about this. Of course, we need new out-patient departments, operating-theatre suites and other units; emphatically we do. Our hospital building programme is being expanded to provide such additions and improvements, many I agree overdue.
It would be relevant to refer to the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend only yesterday, in

reply to a Question about the future capital expenditure in England and Wales on the hospital programme. He announced that this capital expenditure was to rise from £22 million in 1959–60 to £25½ million in 1960–61. Birmingham hospitals have had, and will continue to get, a good share of this available extra money. I have had a look at the figures, to break them down for the purposes of this debate and to see what this increment would mean for Birmingham. It means, apart from major schemes and centrally-financed items, an increase of about 15 per cent. in Birmingham's 1960–61 allocation over its 1959–60 allocation.
Since 1949 the board has provided 300 more general hospital beds in Birmingham. In the same period—I think this is very important—nursing staff has increased by 800, which is roughly 25 per cent. In the same period, there has been a very substantial increase in senior medical staff, that is to say consultants and senior medical hospital officers. In the Selly Oak and Dudley Road groups, this increase has been equivalent to 27 whole-time staff, or over 30 per cent.
Hospital improvement is not only to be measured in terms of the number of beds available, but by improved capacity to treat more patients, whether as inpatients or out-patients, than in 1949. I join in the tribute of the hon. Member to the nursing and medical staff, who have been working under considerable difficulties. We have certainly had very much more efficient use of beds. With additional nursing and medical staff there has not been any decline in quality of treatment.
Waiting lists are a perpetual source of worry and frustration, and it is true that there have been long lists for admission to certain hospital departments, but no urgent case waits long and emergencies are dealt with immediately. What strikes me in considering these waiting lists is that the waiting list at the non-teaching general hospitals in Birmingham has fallen by 40 per cent. between 1949 and September last, the latest date for which I have figures. I think that is a very creditable achievement. We should like to see it better. We shall never be satisfied in this respect, but it shows that the graph is going the right way. Certainly deficiencies exist, but the problem is


being energetically tackled and we can already see some results.
Before I say a word or two about the three principal schemes which the hon. Member had in mind, I should point out that while it is the duty of my right hon. and learned Friend to encourage necessary new development, it is also his duty with the help of the regional board, to see that available money is wisely spent. This inevitably involves very close scrutiny of development schemes to ensure that those developments are properly related to the needs of the area concerned and to other hospital facilities nearby and that they are soundly planned and within available financial resources.
It is interesting to note that in this debate we have heard an hon. Member and a right hon. Member quite properly, pressing the claims of the areas of their constituencies for additional development. Both those areas come under the regional hospital board, who have the difficult task of holding a proper balance in the use of the available resources between the two. I should be in trouble with one or other if we found that too much was going to one or the other.
The points I have made are relevant in considering the case for an out-patients department planned for Selly Oak. I know the condition and age of that hospital, but it is being planned as a main centre for out-patients consultation in south-west Birmingham, at a cost of £350,000. As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 8th December, it was necessary for the regional board to consider this scheme in relation to other hospital provision in Birmingham, including two other major schemes under consideration. This involved much local consultation at a time when, as I explained to the hon. Member, headquarters medical staff was severely depleted.
I wish to pay tribute to the assiduity of the board in trying to overcome this handicap and trying to get through its work at a time when it is short of staff. I happen to know that many of the discussions relating to these matters have been held on Sundays, and one was on Whit Sunday. I make that point because I do not want it to be thought that any grass has grown under those feet while this matter has been under consideration. In the event, the board has

sent us within the past week its observations on the points raised by us earlier in the year. These cover a number of subjects, but we shall consider them with all speed, because both the board and ourselves are most anxious to press on.
The Little Bromwich case was a matter of the new operating theatres. I certainly appreciate the tremendous strain under which the hospital staff there are operating. The regional board's original scheme was, however, for an advanced experimental design of theatre which had to be abandoned because it was too costly. Sketch plans of the revised design were submitted in January, 1958, but these appeared to us unnecessarily costly. I am happy to say that the differences have now been resolved and that the Board—I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to hear this—is now authorised to prepare working drawings. This is not a replacement of existing services, but part of a plan to expand an old infectious diseases hospital into an acute illness general hospital.
Since our Adjournment debate on the Birmingham Dental Hospital a year ago, agreement has been reached on the size of student entry. In the light of that decision, plans were discussed, as the hon. Member said, with the board of governors on 2nd June last. The matter was not quite settled at that stage. Modifications resulted and were incorporated in fresh plans, which reached the Department on 13th October. These are now being studied to determine with the University Grants Committee the share of the cost which is a proper university responsibility.
Here again, I assure the hon. Member that we accept the urgency and we shall proceed with all possible speed. This is a £1 million scheme and one of the reasons which involved additional delay was that in seeking to accept the findings of the McNair Report and to step up the facilities for the training of dentists, we have in the event greatly enlarged the proposed capacity to train students in this hospital. That is one of the points with which the hon. Member was concerned.
The hon. Member mentioned also the question of waiting lists. It is, however, fair to point out that we are dealing here with a teaching hospital whose main


function is to train students, not to provide general dental care, although I freely admit that it is making a valuable, irreplaceable contribution on that front in Birmingham.
The hon. Member chided me with not having visited Birmingham after his courteous invitation last year. On the whole, however, I have done the hon. Member rather well. It is true that I did not go myself. My right hon. and learned Friend went and I should have thought that the hon. Member would feel that it was the sorcerer and not the apprentice who made the visit.

Mr. Yates: The Minister wrote and told me that he could not come. Although he was, in fact, in the area, he did not come to the dental hospital.

Mr. Thompson: I have a copy of the letter with me. It is expecting a little too much that specific individual hospitals can all be visited when a Minister visits a region. My right hon. and learned Friend did go, however, and he is in no doubt of the situation concerning the dental hospital.
I hope that the hon. Member will acquit me of discourtesy if I reply in only a few words very quickly, to the points which he rapidly made. The waiting lists in respect of tonsils and adenoids are being reviewed urgently. The regional board has applied for authority to appoint an additional anaesthetist. As the right hon. Member for West Bromwich knows from a written reply, two extra operating sessions per week are to be provided. This should give some relief.
The right hon. Gentleman correctly stated the figures in respect of the chronic sick. The regional hospital board has recently set up a regional advisory committee on geriatric services and the geriatrician to the West Bromwich and District Hospital Management Committee is a member of this committee. One of the matters for its consideration is geriatric services in the West Bromwich area, including the proposal to provide new accommodation for chronic sick at Hallam Hospital.
The hon. Member raised with me the case of one of his constituents who had been denied entry to a hospital. I ask him to let me have the details. I will most gladly look into it.
I must conclude, because I shall incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I proceed further. Apart from the three major schemes in which the hon. Member for Ladywood was interested, my right hon. and learned Friend's statement yesterday indicated that the board of governors are being authorised to proceed with the planning of a new radiotherapy centre to serve all Birmingham, and the regional hospital board, in addition to the further rebuilding of the Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, which I agree is outside the area which we are discussing today, are being authorised to proceed with further development of the Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield, which I am sure will help to relieve pressure on the Birmingham General Hospital.
When we consider the full implications of the statement made yesterday, together with the assurance which I have been able to give to the right hon. and hon. Members today, I hope that we can honestly say that progress is being made. that all these matters are very much in our minds, that the necessary financial assistance is forthcoming and that we are pressing on with them with a sense of due urgency.

HORTICULTURE, SCOTLAND

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I wish to draw attention to the state of horticulture in Scotland, in which there is a mood of frustration and a certain sense of neglect.
When one gives figures for the situation in the industry it is easy to complain that any set of figures is distorted because it refers to a bad year or to a good year and does not give a complete picture. If, however, we look over the figures for four or five years—and I have here the figures for 1954–57—we find a picture which is not healthy and which cries out for some help.
The pickings of raspberries were up by about 10 per cent. in the period 1954–57, but the acreage had gone up by 15 per cent., and it can hardly be said, therefore, that there was a general improvement in the industry. Strawberries do not even appear to flourish. Over the same period the area under cultivation of strawberries


in Scotland has fallen by 12 per cent. arid the pickings have fallen by 30 per cent. For gooseberries and currants the position is little better; the area under cultivation is down by 12 per cent. and pickings by 30 per cent.
Tomatoes, which are probably the most important single crop, do not appear, comparatively, to have done so badly. The area is almost constant but the trend in pickings is downwards. My main concern this afternoon is with tomatoes because the Clyde Valley, a great part of which is in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, has almost half of the 13 million square feet of Scottish glasshouses. Although the area is roughly constant and pickings are not very much down over a period of several years, there has been a considerable decrease in earnings. When we consider the inflation of recent years, these figures tell a sorry tale.
In 1953, the Scottish tomato growers' total earnings were about £1,734,000. In the past year they are about £1,400,000, a decline of 18 per cent. over five years, and this is without regard to the decline in value that inflation reflects. Moreover, in the horticultural industry costs are largely fixed by what I might call monopoly factors, such as wages, which are fixed on a collective basis, or fuel, which is in monopoly supply, whereas the rewards of horticulture are determined in a free market largely by the whims of the weather and the most important earnings, at any rate in tomatoes, are in a period of chronic glut in the summer.
The change in the cost element of tomato growing is very serious. Fixed minimum wages in 1953 were about £5 16s. a week, in 1958, £7 5s., and any time now they will be about £7 11 s. 6d. That means that there has been a rise of not less than 35 to 40 per cent. in wages alone over a period of four or five years. The rise in the cost of fuel is even more startling. A ton of anthracite in 1954 cost £6. The price is now about £9, a rise of almost 50 per cent. A ton of dross, which is used by mechanical stokers, was £3 a ton. Now it is £4 10s., again, a 50 per cent. rise.
The consequence of these dramatic rises in cost, unmatched by anything like a corresponding increase in earnings—indeed, overall, there has been a decrease in earnings—was, not surprisingly,

summed up by the Agricultural Directory of Scotland in 1955 as follows;
Quite a number of holdings were put up for sale recently at prices below the cost of building new glasshouses.
Since then the position has become worse.
The main reason why smallholders who grow tomatoes or other horticultural products stick to horticulture is that they work as family units so far as they can. They have a tenacious attachment to the occupation and are tremendous individualists. Many of them own the small plots which they work and it would take almost an atom bomb to drive them away.
I believe that there are two broad lines of approach to the problem. One is to raise the tariff on imported competing horticultural produce in the summer. Everybody knows that application was made a long time ago to raise the tariff on imported tomatoes during June and July from 4d. to 6d. per 1b. That application is under consideration, but it has been under consideration for far too long to give us much comfort. It is not my purpose, however, to press that aspect very strongly.
The second line of approach must be direct aid. I am not asking for further coal subsidies, though it is very common among the tomato growers to say that coal should be subsidised. The Coal Board tell us, in effect, that much of the coal which they have been selling is already subsidised; in fact, it is sold at a considerable loss.
The approach which has to be made is primarily that of direct aid if we cannot get any significant improvement in the tariff at an early date. There is some case for applying to horticulture the principle enshrined in the Government's aid plan to small farmers, the principle that the country has an interest in securing the most economic production of food, which involves a policy of giving various kinds of direct help to small farmers.
I should like to see the farm improvement scheme which is already enshrined in Part II of the 1957 Act extended in its application. If we could have it applied to the provision of such aids to efficient production as mechanical stokers, drip systems for watering, high-pressure lamps and other equipment, I think that we should stimulate some of our growers to more economic production to help in the battle of rising costs.
There is a strong case for the Government to give their mind to a scheme to assist all growers with less than 20 acres. That is the acreage limit at which the small farm scheme is going to stop, and we know that only a very few horticultural producers will come within it, probably a certain number of people growing raspberries.
I should like to say one further word about the tariff position. The industry as a whole looks for tariff protection. It has been concerned in recent years by the influx of Dutch tomatoes. The British market is the only open free market for tomatoes in Europe, and now it is being faced with a very serious threat of new tomato supplies from Spain. I was a little distressed, a short time ago, to learn that in some quarters this threat was not taken so seriously as some of our tomato experts believe it should be taken. I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and through him the Government, that the outdoor growing of tomatoes in Alicante will confront the whole British market with a very considerable threat.
In the United Kingdom the total acreage of glasshouses used for growing tomatoes has declined by about 5 per cent. over the last two and a half years, but in Holland the acreage of glasshouses is rising and has been doing so for several years. These are the broad facts of the tomato growers' plight. They are not unknown; they have been stated before. The simple position is that earnings have shrunk while costs, whether of wages or fuel, have risen every four or five years by the best part of 50 per cent. This speaks for itself.
These people are tenacious, individualistic, resolute, and determined to cling to their homes; and on their behalf, I appeal to the Government to give this matter very serious consideration.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: The time limit for this debate is so exceedingly short that it would be wrong of me to take up very much time in commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland). He deployed his case with some skill, and I thought that he might have had something to say about other aspects of the produce

of Scottish horticulture besides tomatoes. I appreciate that the difficulties and problems of the tomato growers in Scotland are very grave indeed, and perhaps the hon. Member concentrated on that section of the industry which is most in need of organisation, control and some kind of assistance by State action.
It will be exactly two years next Saturday since the Runciman Committee's Report was presented to this House. We have never had an opportunity of debating that Report. If, as a result of this short debate, we have before long an opportunity of discussing the whole problem of horticultural marketing, the hon. Member will have done a valuable service to the industry.
I content myself with those remarks in the hope that we shall have such a debate and be able to develop this discussion further. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would welcome such a debate, because it was his father who was chairman of an earlier committee of inquiry into this subject, which made certain recommendations, some of which were adopted and others not. The Runciman Committee's Report contains many valuable suggestions, but most of them require some organisation and Government co-operation in this industry. Speaking from this side of the House, I would welcome the adoption of many of those recommendations.

4.3 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. P. Maitland) has told me something of his constituents' problems in tomato growing, and has mentioned that there were similar problems in connection with raspberries and gooseberries. I think that the root problem was disclosed when my hon. Friend ferred to chronic gluts.
I believe that the industry is failing to preserve tomatoes which should be preserved at a time of glut, so that they can be eked out and sold at a time when there are no Scottish tomatoes, which, I think, are the finest tomatoes that there are.
The horticultural industry, since before the war, has made great strides. A transformation has come over the scene. We never hear nowadays of the gluts which


used to overwhelm Covent Garden and other great markets in midsummer. Surpluses are frozen and cold-stored.
I must declare my interest as the managing director of a cold storage company in London and North Lincolnshire which meets a demand for low temperature facilities and cold storage. Forty years ago, when I was in the fishing industry and looked on the great gluts of fish, I said, "Why not freeze it?" The wise men said that it could not be done. Now we freeze thousands of tons of fish every month, not only in this country but in other countries.
We are now freezing strawberries, which have a high fluid content similar to tomatoes, not only here but in the United States, where they have been doing it for many years. We find in Florida, at the height of the tourist season, great train loads of frozen strawberries going to West Virginia and elsewhere. Something can be done with tomatoes at a time of glut.
I do not accept for one moment that this is an impossibility. So I ask my hon. Friend to take heart, and consult the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Agricultural Research Institute and the Canning and Low Temperature Research Association. I feel that even if all the information needed to overcome the problem is not available, it can still be conquered. I am quite convinced it is not insoluble.

4.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I am very glad we have had this debate through the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland). It has come at an important time for an important industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) made important contributions in their short but constructive speeches.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark in opening the debate made quite clear what the nature of horticulture as a business is. We know it is liable to extreme fluctuations in output and demand. We know it is very sensitive to departures from the normal, especially in the weather. And in Britain

in particular it has to meet—we have to face this fact—keen competition from growers in other countries. All in all, this does add up to quite a list of problems for horticulturists to handle. Our horticulturists in Scotland have their full share of these. I make that observation because I think it is a tribute to the vigour and efficency of our horticulturists north of the Border that they have succeeded in building up a sound and solidly founded Scottish industry.
In terms of numbers of full-time producers or acres devoted to horticultural production the industry may appear to be small. There are in fact fewer than 1,000 specialised full-time producers among some 32,000 full-time farmers, and some 21,000 acres of horticultural crops out of nearly 4 million acres of crops and grass, but horticultural output in 1957 to 1958 was valued at £5 million, that is, about 3 per cent, of the total value of Scottish agricultural output.
So much for the background. My hon. Friend has painted today rather a gloomy picture of the present state of the industry. I must be prepared to go with him to a certain extent, and certainly to the extent of recognising that the weather of the last two summers has been very discouraging to growers and that 1958, which, of course, had an exceptionally bad summer, has shown less favourable results both as to output and returns for tomatoes and strawberries. Because of this there may be a decrease this year in the total value of our horticultural output.
This only illustrates the extent to which the industry has to cope with hazards beyond its control. I do agree also that the industry has other difficulties with which to contend, about which I shall say more in a minute, although I shall be only a few minutes as I know that there are other hon. Members awaiting their turn to speak.
The picture as a whole is, of course, not one of unmixed gloom. My hon. Friend will acquit me of any complacency about this industry, but there are some bright spots. For example, among the vegetable crops there has been a steady increase in the production of canning peas in response to rising prices. This year the Scottish Horticultural Research Institute at Mylnefield, near Dundee, which has developed the technique of


heat treatment of raspberry and strawberry stocks for the elimination of viruses, is issuing some 25,000 raspberry canes and 20,000 strawberry plants which have been successfully treated and will, I think, prove of great assistance to the industry. In passing, I should like to pay tribute to the director and staff of the Mylnefield Institute who, in the very short time that the institute has been in existence, have done some very wonderful work.
The glasshouse section of the industry has its own particular and peculiar problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark has in his constituency in the Clyde Valley the largest concentration of glasshouse production in Scotland, and understandably he is very interested in that aspect. He has given us figures to show that over recent years, while the total glasshouse area has remained roughly unchanged, the production by tomato growers and their returns have shown a downward trend, while fuel and labour costs have gone up. I believe that that is a fair summary of what he said.
It is always a little difficult to assess the economics of glasshouse production. Growing tomatoes is often combined with the production of other crops and it is difficult to obtain reliable figures covering the different features. Changes in unit costs, such as of labour and fuel, are not wholly a reliable guide to changes in the profitability of the industry. I do not want, however, to be taken as in any way lightly brushing aside the points which my hon. Friend has made. Whereas his figures are different from those that are available to me, I agree that it is inescapable that there has been a downward trend in production and returns in the past few years.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I am sure that my noble Friend will bear in mind that the figures that I gave surveyed four to five years and took account of the good years as well as the bad.

Lord John Hope: Yes, indeed. I think that the argument, as it came out in debate, is broadly that the returns available to this class of grower are affected by foreign competition and that something should be done about that by us. As to foreign production, my hon. Friend has recalled the applications made at various times for help on the tariff

front, but I know that he realises that I cannot go into that question at this moment.
As to capital equipment, I should stress that horticultural holdings are not necessarily excluded from the Farm Improvement Scheme. The provision of storage and other general purpose buildings on horticultural holdings can be aided under the scheme provided—and this is the limiting factor—that the buildings are of a type suitable for an agricultural holding. I agree, however, that some improvements which might be most useful on specialised horticultural holdings may well fail to qualify under the Farm Improvement Scheme.
A scheme to help small farmers is now before the House. While under it some small farmers who produce horticultural crops may be eligible for assistance, the scheme does not cover all full-time specialist horticultural producers. I know that my hon. Friend realises that we as a Government spend a considerable amount of money as it is on this industry. We have the Horticultural Advisory Service, the Scottish Horticultural Research Institute, the administration of fruit stock certification schemes, and fruit and vegetable grading schemes. All these play a considerable part in maintaining the efficiency of the industry and that, after all, is as important a factor as any in securing the well-being of this industry as of any other.
Efficiency does not stop short with the use of modern techniques in production. It is needed as much in the preparation of products for market in a way that will please the customer and stimulate demand. I think that the industry will recognise that, despite the difficulties which it cannot help, there is considerable room for self-help still on its part. I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which he and other hon. Members raised this matter today. I shall, of course, take very careful note of the points and suggestions that have been made. They are not new; he recognised that. However, the strength of the points he has made, and the suggestions given, is by no means diminished by repetition and my hon. Friend has rendered a service to the industry and to his constituency by raising this matter with such force.

MALCOLM CLUBS

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: At this time of the year, when there is a feeling of peace and good will amongst men, I rise in this last debate of the day with a deep sense of mission. It is to try to preserve intact the movement which has come to be referred to as the Malcolm Clubs, an organisation which has been in being for approximately fifteen years and has done a wonderful job of work all over the world and which is now threatened with extinction.
Being forced, as I am, to telescope into a few minutes a case which should take many hours to unfold, I am compelled to refer in the briefest possible outline to the history of this case. No one has denied that from their inception right up to the present time the Malcolm Clubs have performed a truly magnificent task in welfare and in services on stations overseas, which in wartime spread across the world but now in peacetime have contracted to stations in Germany, in Malaya and one in this country. The trouble which has arisen is the alleged debt of the Malcolm Clubs to the Air Ministry. It is not of the clubs' making but is entirely due to the loss of the concessional rate of the mark in 1956. It is from this debt that the sad, sorry, and even sordid story, of the negotiations between the Malcolm Clubs and the Air Ministry commences.
From the outset there has been a complete lack of appreciation from the Civil Service in Whitehall of the task of incalculable value done largely overseas. The Malcolm Clubs of necessity, never having been capitalised, have had to run all those fifteen years virtually on a shoestring. Yet, in spite of that, and this is what I want every hon. Member of the House to bear in mind, during the period in question they have contributed no less a sum than £85,000 towards airmen's station funds, part of the proceeds of which go to the Royal Air Force Central Fund.
Today the subject of contention is the alleged debt owing to the Air Ministry, said to be £38,000, a figure strongly disputed by the Malcolm Clubs because, as I have said, it results from the loss of

the concessional rate of the mark and from the most arbitrary and extraordinary treatment received by the Malcolm Clubs from the Air Ministry in the months following the loss of the concessional rate. When this treatment is compared with that accorded to other bodies by Ministries such as by the War Office to the Council of Voluntary Work, the treatment accorded by the Air Ministry can frankly only be regarded as shameful.
Due to the extreme time limitation in which I am compelled to speak, I can only say that after a most rigid examination of all the documents I would welcome a detailed examination either by an independent committee or a completely neutral person. I am confident that the Malcolm Clubs as an organisation would come out second to none and would be very proud of what they have done. The more I have looked at, studied and gone into the whole of this sad story, the more have I been convinced that extreme pressure is being put on by the Civil Service somewhere to close these clubs for motives which have not yet been brought to light but which I am quite certain are completely unworthy.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Jealousy.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Throughout the years, the proud motto of the Royal Air Force—and here I bow my head to the memory of Lord Trenchard—has been "Per Ardua ad Astra." Obviously the Minister's mistaken advisers are trying to change that motto to "Per Ardua ad Naafidom"—something which can be viewed only with utter distaste by people who have the interest of the Force at heart.
It might be argued, and the Minister may well argue, that this is a purely factual case and a matter which has to be treated purely on its financial merits, and that he and his Department have to face the scrutiny of the Committee of Public Accounts. Yet if one compares this paltry and niggardly sum which is being used as the weapon of destruction of the Malcolm Clubs with the literally millions of pounds which have been wasted on ill-advised operations in other directions, one cannot help having a feeling of utter and complete disgust.
It might also be said that the argument for the retention of the Malcolm Clubs is


an emotional argument and is not justified by present-day facts. I remind the Minister that throughout the history of the R.A.F. itself, it has been an emotional Service. It has been a Service in which deep emotions have produced the most fantastic and the most wonderful results. One has only to think of the emotions which controlled and inspired the Few in the days of the Battle of Britain. We cannot cut emotion out of this.
It is also emotion which has inspired those truly wonderful ladies who have given their services voluntarily and who have created these exceptional clubs from the beginning. These ladies are dedicated and consecrated to providing an atmosphere for the flying "erk"—and I use the word "erk" in the affectionate sense in which we regard all Air Force personnel—quite different from the atmosphere of a rather dirty waiting room at a railway station, which is the only alternative which would be offered if the Malcolm Clubs were closed.
In passing, I also know that flying men everywhere would like to pay a tribute in this matter to the leaders of that very remarkable organisation, Lord and Lady Tedder. I am equally convinced that decent men everywhere and men of good will in all three Services will wish both Lord and Lady Tedder good luck in their great efforts to preserve, enhance, and if possible extend this exemplary service.
Here I want to quote a very short leading article which appeared on Sunday in the Sunday Times:
The Air Minister's decision that the closing of the Malcolm Clubs must go ahead, announced even before Parliament has had the opportunity of the debate set down for Thursday, must cause inevitable disappointment. Since the Air Ministry stated last July that these clubs would be closed to avoid unnecessary loss of public funds, there have been many indications that their financial position has improved and that they might be able to pay their way without additional subvention. The gap … between the two sides seemed to have significantly narrowed. At the same time a great weight of Service opinion has flowed in in support of the Clubs and their essential value to the R.A.F. since the danger to them was first ventilated in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago.
Then comes this last paragraph:
It is hard to conceive that it is beyond the ingenuity of the Ministry to devise some means of strengthening the financial structure if that is all that stands between the Service men and the Clubs they so clearly desire. Surely it is not yet too late for reconsideration.

What other case might be made by the Minister? Even if he says that the decision to close the clubs was unanimously offered by the present Air Council or by all his advisers, it is a sober thought that all those Air Force officers, from the days of the Battle of Britain until now, those who had responsibility when we were fighting on our own, practically without exception have demanded that the clubs should be maintained. I have letters and correspondence to prove that.
If there is any further doubt about whether the clubs should be kept open, I have with me the signatures and the letters and telegrams from more than 90 per cent. of the Service strength of the R.A.F. stationed in Germany, plus hundreds of other letters. Other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have had telegrams and letters from all over the world—and that is in addition to those sent to me. Could there be a more damning indictment of the pettyfogging policy followed by the Civil Service?
By and large, the men of the air are queer birds. I have spent most of my life with them and I know them well. They regard these clubs as something essentially their own, something a little better. Given good will by the Air Ministry and ordinary decent business treatment, they can pay their way. Even now, they are reducing month by month the paltry debt which they owe to the Air Ministry. Sentiment? Yes. But who can say how things will develop in Germany, or in any other part of the world, when the clubs may be as desperately needed as they were in the latter years of the war?
To shut down the clubs and to dispense with their services can be regarded only as a crime. I know that my right hon. Friend loves everything connected with the Air Force. I recognise that and I pay him tribute for it. I implore him to keep the door open. Flying men, past, present and future, all over the world await his answer, not because of the relative size of the Malcolm Clubs, but because of the faith which they have in them as their own organisation.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) has put his case for the Malcolm Clubs with great eloquence and with restrained objectivity. I intervene


because I have both a debt to the House and an interest in the matter. I have been associated with Malcolm Clubs since their beginning. I was associated with Lord and Lady Tedder when Malcolm Clubs were formed in November, 1944. I have since been on their council. I am one of the guarantors, and, therefore, vitally interested in the solvency or insolvency of the organisation.
I have visited a number of the clubs in Germany and elsewhere and I echo the sentiment of the hon. Member and the tributes which he paid to Lady Tedder and the many other ladies associated with her in the devoted and dedicated service which, for fourteen or fifteen years, they have given to the organisation. I am proud to have been associated with the Malcolm Clubs.
I must disclose to the House something of the negotiations with the Minister earlier this year. The Minister proposed that the clubs should be closed. I had an interview with him in May and a further interview with him in July. On that occasion, he suggested that they should be closed by the end of the current year. I told the Minister that my view, as a member of the council—although I could not commit my colleagues—was that if the clubs were ever to be closed down it would be unfortunate, and that it should at least be a phased operation, taking place over a period of two years or more.
Subsequently, the council of the Malcolm Clubs accepted the suggestion of the Minister that he should appoint an independent firm of accountants to investigate the state of the accounts between the Air Ministry and the clubs. That investigation has taken place. I have also had the advantage of making a much closer investigation of the financial position of the clubs, in their relations with the Air Ministry. So far from these clubs being indebted to the Air Ministry in the sum of about £40,000, their present indebtedness does not exceed £11,000 or £12,000.
The position has radically changed since the spring of this year, when the Minister was first insisting that these clubs should be closed down because he feared for the solvency of the organisation, and that the indebtedness of these clubs to the Air

Ministry would increase. That is the only excuse that has ever been given for the Minister's threat, and there is no foundation for it. Since the spring of this year the indebtedness of the clubs to the Air Ministry has been reduced by no less than £5,000.
Furthermore, they are in the process of realising capital assets to the value of at least £18,000 as a result of the economies which have taken place. I refer to the closing of one or two obviously unprofitable clubs which it would have been nice to keep up because they were rendering a valuable service to airmen in isolated places. Owing to the Minister's pressure they have been closed. As a result of these and other economies, I am now satisfied—speaking with the full responsibility of a member of the council—that this organisation can continue, granted the subsidy which it has been granted for the last year or two, in common with all similar organisations.
But a further change has come over the situation since the spring of this year. Then negotiations were being conducted in private. In the last few weeks, however, the affairs of the Malcolm Clubs have become a matter of great public interest and importance. For reasons which are obvious, I should not have raised this matter myself, and I am glad that the pressure upon the Minister has come from the benches opposite. I can state that I, too, have received numerous letters, telegrams and petitions from Singapore and Germany signed by large numbers of airmen, begging that this organisation should be allowed to remain in being.
One of the reasons which the Minister gave me for his attitude was his fear of criticism by the Public Accounts Committee if he allowed the organisation to continue. That is an entirely bogus reason. The expressions of public opinion which have been voiced in the House, in another place, only today, and also in the Press, would have given the Minister all the protection he required from any criticism by the Public Accounts Committee.
Furthermore, if he is really afraid of that Committee I would sponsor the suggestion that the matter should be investigated now, if necessary, by that Committee, because I do not believe that


there is any danger whatever of the existing indebtedness to the Air Ministry being increased if these clubs are allowed to continue. On the contrary, I believe that as a result of capital assets being realised, and of the economies made, this indebtedness will be reduced—and can be reduced only if these clubs are allowed to continue.
Therefore, so far from the Minister having any need to worry about criticisms from the Public Accounts Committee, he is in danger of a very considerable volume of Parliamentary criticism from both sides of the House unless he changes his provisional opinion on the subject and allows these clubs to continue.
There is no need for a sudden, dramatic decision to be made. Negotiations can take place, and the Minister can have all the safeguards he likes regarding how the money is spent and what economies will be made. In fact, I do not think that any challenge has ever been made to the competence and efficiency with which the clubs have been run. As the hon. Member for Watford pointed out, the present situation arose through purely fortuitous circumstances, because the concession rate which was enjoyed from September, 1956, in Germany was withdrawn. I therefore ask the Minister, in the light of the criticism from both sides of the House, to consider his whole attitude to the matter.

4.36 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I do not want to delay the House for more than a minute or two, and certainly nothing that I can say would strengthen the case put by hon. Members who have already spoken. But I would like to say a word as one of the numerous hon. Members—nearly 50—who put their names to a Motion some month or two ago, the effect of which was:
…that the projected action of the Air Ministry in abolishing these clubs is contrary to the best interests of the Royal Air Force and ought to be abandoned.
Those of us who put our names to that Motion represented all sections of the House and all ages. We had one thing in common, an abiding affection for the Royal Air Force. The great majority of us have had the honour of serving in that Service in one capacity or another. We are very much concerned—and I speak

here for a number of my hon. Friends who cannot be present today—at the attitude of my right hon. Friend. We know, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) has already made clear, that there is no one person who has a greater love and regard for the Royal Air Force than my right hon. Friend.
We are, however, a little concerned as to whether he has really ever considered the merits of the matter with an open mind. The reason for that is that in the first place we had hoped that there would be an opportunity of debating the matter at some length. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford was able to secure a hearing for it today at the very end of our debate. But, unfortunately, we found that my right hon. Friend thought it was right to make a statement in answer to a Question on 10th December which really had the effect of prejudging the whole matter. About that we are very concerned indeed.
Of course, there is much more in it than merely a question of the views of Members of the House of Commons. There is the question of feeling in the Service, and we are very much concerned as to whether my right hon. Friend is not really out of touch with Service opinion in the matter. There is a fear that he is too much influenced by advisers other than advisers in the Service. That, I think, would be a very unfortunate thing.
I do not want it to be thought that I am saying anything whatever in criticism of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he has acted on the advice which he has received, but I think he ought to realise, if I may very respectfully say so to him. that there is very strong feeling in the matter. It would be a most unfortunate thing if that great Service should have the idea that the Secretary of State is not acting in its interest and with regard to its views. I am sure that is not so, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity today of making that clear.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I have time for only one point. Like many other hon. Members, I have visited Malcolm Clubs all over the world, in Japan, South-East Asia, the Middle East and Germany. I have always been deeply


impressed with what they are doing. I ask the Secretary of State to answer this point. Why could not the clubs be given the same direct and indirect help which is given to the other voluntary bodies that do welfare work on Royal Air Force stations? Why are the clubs singled out and discriminated against?

4.40 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I too wish to add my plea to my right hon. Friend, and I want to say that I do so rather on the grounds that the Royal Air Force, as compared with the Royal Navy and the Army, is a comparatively new service, which is building up its traditions, and I would suggest to my right hon Friend that these clubs have become a part of the Royal Air Force. They were founded because the name of Malcolm, who was a great hero, meant something to them, and we know how many of them have been carried on by a great man, a Marshal of the Royal Air Force. I have had some experience overseas in the Far East, and I know that they have done very excellent work.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he does not think that they only can do better work than any professional organisation, particularly in regard to the welfare side. I am not running down the N.A.A.F.I., which I think is excellent for stores, but which can never take on the welfare side which can be done by such clubs as the Malcolm Clubs. We have recently been discussing recruiting and the Grigg Report. We have also been discussing the morale of the various Services, and I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend that to do away with these clubs would be interfering with that morale.
These clubs are morale-boosters. My right hon. Friend may remember that the N.A.A.F.I. in the Far East had to send for women to help them in their work. If we had had these clubs earlier, and they had come out to Singapore in 1944, we would have been better served. I worked overseas in Java and Malaya, and we would have been very sad if we had not had them before the N.A.A.F.I. could arrive there, and this was one of the benefits of this organisation—that it could arrive more quickly than the Y.M.C.A. I would suggest that if the A.O.C. in Cyprus had been allowed to have more of these clubs they perhaps would not have been in the situation they are in to-

day. There has been a cutting down of these clubs, as we all know. Some of these clubs helped to carry others, because some pay better than others. The Far East ones pay very well, and have helped to carry the others.
I have a great fear that if we allow these Malcolm Clubs to be done away with, it may be that this work will not be done by other voluntary organisations. I think that the work of such organisations as the Malcolm Clubs, Toc H and others has been an invaluable work for the Services, which ought to be done by these bodies without bringing something of other business interests into it. I think that they bring a welfare service and a Christian service into their work, and I would earnestly ask my right hon. Friend to consider the pleas which have been made to him.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I want to support the attempt which the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey Jones) is making to retain the services of the Malcolm Clubs. In his company, and in the company of other hon. Gentlemen on the Government side along with hon. Friends of my own, I had the opportunity of seeing at first hand the work which is being done by these clubs.
I want to say that I was tremendously impressed, first of all, by the tremendous respect which was shown by the R.A.F. boys to the superintendents, and, secondly, that when one entered the club, one felt that one was going into a place that was like a home. The other impression which I had immediately was that of the tidiness and the general atmosphere of the whole place. These things impressed me very much indeed, because I found amongst the boys there, when I went talking to them, that there was no discontent whatever. They seemed to be very happy, and I could not help contrasting them with the N.A.A.F.I.—and in what I am now going to say, I do not want to make any unfair comparisons.
I had been to N.A.A.F.I. in the course of my visit. Now I mean to say nothing unfair to N.A.A.F.I. and to the atmosphere there, but I must say that the conditions seemed not to be so good as those that existed in the Malcolm Clubs. This may have been accidental, but I found among the boys in the Malcolm Clubs no dissatisfaction, as if their social and complementary needs were being


adequately fulfilled, as they were, in the Malcolm Clubs.
The Secetary of State cannot take all these things and turn them into £ s. d. They are quite immeasurable, in the financial sense, and no amount of money can provide them. They are being given voluntarily by people who want to do them for the sake of doing them. I hope that the Secretary of State for War—

Mr. George Wigg: For Air.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, Secretary of State for Air; but he is still concerned with war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Preventing war."] Very well, he has the defensive aspect to look after, so I hope that he will use all his defensive powers today on behalf of the Malcolm Clubs.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I will detain the House for not more than a few moments, because, obviously, the Secretary of State for Air is anxious to rise and please the House by giving us what we all seek today—the information that he has had a change of heart.
I had the privilege, with a number of other hon. Members and Members of another place, of attending one of these clubs in the late summer. The news had got around of the possibility of closing the Malcolm Clubs. One after another, the personnel there said, "Surely the Minister will never allow this. He is a good Minister. He will never"—I use the language which was used to me—"allow the eggheads to advise him wrongly. Let him stand on his own feet. He is a man we respect, a man we know. Please convey to him that he should use all the influence he has to let these clubs, which are homes to us, to remain open."

4.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I am grateful for this opportunity of explaining to the House why I and my colleagues of the Air Council decided that the Malcolm Clubs should close. This was not an easy or pleasant decision to take. I am sure that hon. Members, knowing me, will appreciate that.
It has been suggested that the Air Council acted under pressure from N.A.A.F.I. I hope that the House would accept from me an unqualified assurance that this was not so. I shall show that

facts spoke for themselves; and we dealt only with facts.
None of us likes to see the airman lack any part of his welfare facilities, however small, but it is fair as well as important that we should bear in mind that the 14 Malcolm Clubs serve a relatively small section of the Royal Air Force, perhaps 10 per cent., and that the airman is very well looked after in other ways. N.A.A.F.I., which is the Services' own organisation, has 1,000 clubs, of which more than 250 are in the Royal Air Force, and it does an excellent job. It was less than fair of my hon. Friend to speak of a "dirty, waiting-room atmosphere", less than fair.
Then there is the Council for Voluntary Welfare Work, with more than 200 clubs of which more than 50 are solely for the Royal Air Force. In addition, there are wives' clubs, families' clubs, sports clubs, hobbies clubs, and so on. This was the background against which we had to consider the considerable financial difficulties involved.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ward: No, I am sorry that I have not time to do so.
So far, the House has heard one side of the case. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to give my side. Malcolm Clubs have been continuously in debt to the Air Ministry for some years. That in itself is not a happy state of affairs. because it amounts to the provision of working capital from public funds. At the beginning of 1957, the debt showed a considerable increase. Malcolm Clubs undertook to pay the Air Ministry £5,000 a month for services provided in Germany.
Payments made to us at that rate were erratic, and finally came to a halt. We received various assurances, including a statement by the general manager of Malcolm Clubs, that he had no hesitation in confirming that he confidently expected to clear all the Air Ministry debts within the current financial year, by 31st March, 1958.
That was in August, 1957, when the debt stood at about £ 35,000. By 31st March, so far from being cleared off, it had increased to £40,000. In July, as has been said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), we arranged


for a firm of chartered accountants to examine the financial position of Malcolm Clubs. It is estimated that the trading results for 1958, after depreciation, of £11,500 were likely to show a loss of about £7,000 provided subsidy continued at the rate of £30,000 a year. It concluded also that in the absence of receipts on capital account the debt due to the Air Ministry was unlikely to be repaid for a considerable time, if at all, even assuming the continuance of the subsidy.
The Air Council considered this position most carefully, taking into account the undoubted welfare value of Malcolm Clubs, which has been stressed by so many hon. Members today. On the other side of the picture, we also considered very carefully their financial history, the fact that they have no working capital, and future trading conditions for an organisation of this kind in the nature of things must involve an element of uncertainty. It concluded, as I said last week, that the situation really could not be allowed to continue.
It is true that in recent months the debt has been slightly reduced, but we cannot take into account marginal variations which leave the problem fundamentally unchanged. On the other hand, if, in the near future, Malcolm Clubs pay their debt to the Air Ministry and show that they have acquired adequate working capital, I will gladly consider the situation afresh. However, unless and until this happens, the decision must stand. We have already suspended action twice because we understood that Malcolm Clubs were seeking further financial help. The House will appreciate that we cannot go on indefinitely.
It has been said that Malcolm Clubs have counter-claims to offset against the debt, and, in particular, the question of subsidy for the last few months of 1956 has been raised, but the background of that is familiar to all of us. While the British Government were receiving occupation costs from the West German Government we were able to bill Malcolm Clubs for labour, and so on, at a rate of 40 deutschmarks to the £.
When the operation ended we received only a limited amount of support for the clubs and had to bill them at the rate of about 12 deutschmarks to the £. This is an over-simplification. The occupa-

tion of Germany ended in May, 1955, but we continued to provide 40 deutschmarks to the £ until September, 1956. To the extent that we had to buy at 40 deutschmarks to the £, those Malcolm Clubs and other organisations were, in effect, being subsidised even then.
On 1st September, 1956, the concessionary rate was withdrawn. It was agreed that, to enable the Council for Voluntary Welfare Work and Malcolm Clubs to continue operating in Germany, they should be paid a subsidy to cover unavoidable losses. We paid no subsidy to Malcolm Clubs for the calendar year 1956, which is also their financial year. We paid £30,000 in 1957 and we are assuming a figure of £30,000 for the current year.
Malcolm Clubs consider that they ought to have been paid a subsidy in respect of their losses in the last four months of 1956, notwithstanding the fact that they made a surplus in the first eight months. That, I am afraid, I cannot accept. It seems to me that when a subsidy is intended to make good unavoidable losses, it cannot be claimed that it should be paid in order to maintain a surplus.
Indeed, in December, 1956, Malcolm Clubs themselves agreed with us that they could not make a case for subsidy for that year. Latterly, they have felt that they were dealt with less generously than the Council for Voluntary Welfare Work, whose subsidy was not reduced to take into account profits made earlier in the year. I very much doubt whether there is anything in this. First, the Council for Voluntary Welfare Work probably made no profit at all before 1st September anyway, because the scope of their trading is a good deal more limited than that of Malcolm Clubs. Secondly, the subsidy covered only about 80 per cent. of the losses after that date. However that may be, I come back to the fundamental unsoundness, in my opinion, of paying Malcolm Clubs a subsidy in order that they can maintain a surplus.
The hon. Member for Islington, East said that their indebtedness to the Air Ministry was only about £11,000. Yesterday, I received a detailed claim from Malcolm Clubs against the Air Ministry for some £28,000, and £22,000 of that sum is in respect of a subsidy for the last four months of 1956 and other items


which Malcolm Clubs have already been told, which I have told the House and which I now repeat, cannot be met. A good deal of the remaining claim appears to be based on misunderstandings by Malcolm Clubs. There are a number of small items accounting for perhaps £1,500-£1,600, of which we have not previously been informed and which we shall certainly investigate. The counter-claim is, therefore, quite irrelevant to the decision to close Malcolm Clubs.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman admitting that if the subsidy had commenced as soon as the concessionary rate ceased, a further £18,000 would have been paid to Malcolm Clubs? Would not the true figure of indebtedness have been reduced by that amount? Does he not also recognise that if the Clubs are closed that indebtedness cannot be repaid to the Ministry in any event, whereas if they are allowed to continue it may well be repaid?

Mr. Ward: I have already explained at some length why I do not agree that this subsidy should be paid for 1956. Indeed, I pointed out that that was the view of Malcolm Clubs themselves at that time and that it is only recently that they have changed their minds.
The hon. Member for Islington, East assumes that if Malcolm Clubs continued they would be bound to improve their position. I have tried to explain carefully to the House that Malcolm Clubs are a trading organisation and subject to the normal trading risks of any trading organisation. He must, therefore, admit that if there is a possibility of making a profit there is also a possibility of making a loss, and that is a matter which we as responsible people cannot overlook.

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, till Tuesday, 20th January, pursuant to the Resolutions of the House yesterday.